&EPA
o
o
e>
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
La* Vega* NV 89193-3478
EPA 600/4-91/009
April 1991
Research and Development
Background Hydrocarbon
Vapor Concentration Study
for Underground
Fuel Storage Tanks
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
-------
BACKGROUND HYDROCARBON VAPOR CONCENTRATION STUDY
FOR UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS
by
Geoscience Consultants, Ltd.
500 Copper Avenue, NV, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Contract No. 68-03-3409
«•?
Project Officer
Phillip B. Durgin, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Co
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89193-3478
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3409 to
Geoscience Consultants, Ltd. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) of the USEPA
awarded Contract No. 68-03-3409 to Camp, Dresser and McKee (COM) to conduct a
study to determine the background hydrocarbon concentrations in soil vapor in
the backfill of representative underground fuel storage tank (UST) sites
across the country. COM designated Geoscience Consultants, Ltd. (GCL) to
select sampling sites, prepare sampling strategies, review data collection,
analyze the data, and prepare a final report. Field data on clean UST sites
were collected from September 14 to December 13, 1987. Data on UST sites with
documented releases were obtained from Tracer Research Corporation (TRC)
files.
Since no data base for soil vapor information at nonleaking UST sites
was known to exist, a field sampling program was undertaken to establish a
baseline data set of hydrocarbon vapor concentrations. Data vere collected
from 27 gasoline service stations selected as nonleaking sites in 3 diverse
geographic regions: Central Texas (Austin, Texas); areas surrounding
Long Island Sound (Suffolk County, New York; Providence, Rhode Island; Storrs,
Connecticut); and Southern California (San Diego, California). The three
regions were selected for their active UST regulatory programs, as well as
their differences in geology, hydrology, and climate. A site was considered
to be nonleaking if it had good inventory and maintenance records, or had
recently passed a tank tightness test. The nonleaking data base consists of
279 soil vapor samples from 25 service stations. At the other two stations,
observed or suspected leaks prevented their data from being used in the non-
leaking data base.
At each location, soil was sampled at varying distances and depths from
UST appurtenances (such as submersible pumps, vents, and product flow lines)
to determine if a particular pattern of hydrocarbon concentration existed.
Samples vere collected by driving a hollow steel probe into the ground
and evacuating 5 to 10 liters of soil vapors with a vacuum pump. Volatile
hydrocarbon species were identified and quantified the site by utilizing gas
chromatograph/flame ionization detection (GC/FID) equipment. Ten to fifteen
samples were collected and analyzed at each site.
The types of compound groups that were studied were aliphatics, aro-
matics, and total hydrocarbons. The concentrations of volatile aliphatics
that elute from the gas chromatograph (GC) column before benzene were reported
as a group called light aliphatics. At 18 of the sites, the light aliphatics
represent aliphatic compounds such as methane, ethane, propanes, butanes,
and pentanes. At seven of the sites where butanes and pentanes could be
quantified and reported, the concentration of light aliphatics represent only
methane, ethane, and propanes. The aromatics reported were benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and the xylenes (BTEX).
iii
-------
Hydrocarbon concentrations in soil gas are reported in micrograms per
liter (ug/L). These concentrations were calculated directly from the GC/FID
using calibration gas response factors (RF) and sample volumes. The concen-
tration of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) were estimated using an
average RF from the gas standards benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-
xylene (BTEX). The concentrations in milligrams per liter (mg/L) were
converted to parts per million by volume (ppmv), using average molecular
weights of BTEX at each site, and the ambient temperatures and pressures.
Hydrocarbon vapor concentrations from the nonleaking sites range from
detection limit levels of 0.02 ug/L to maximum values of 1,500,000 ug/L
of light aliphatics, 110,000 ug/L of benzene, 160,000 ug/L of toluene,
25,000 ug/L of ethylbenzene, and 110,000 ug/L of xylenes. The maximum concen-
tration of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) is 1,100,000 ug/L.
Determination of total hydrocarbon concentrations exclude the light aliphatic
peaks in order to elevate the compounds most representative of gasoline.
Additionally, subtraction of the light aliphatics peaks precludes the inclu-
sion of methane concentrations caused by naturally-occurring organic
decomposition.
The statistical distribution of total hydrocarbons (less light ali-
phatics) indicates that a majority of the concentration values are in the
lower concentration ranges. The relative frequency distribution shows
53.2 percent of the samples below 1,500 ug/L (500 ppmv) and 93.1 percent below
100,000 ug/L (27,000 ppmv). The median is 800 ug/L and the mean is
23,300 ug/L.
Contaminated site data were obtained from TRC's historical records. The
contaminated site data consists of 60 soil vapor samples taken from 9 sites
having known contamination from a petroleum fuel leak or spill. These sites
were all active gasoline service stations or fueling facilities. The contam-
inated site data also show much variability. The statistical distribution of
total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) shows a majority of sample values
to be in the lower concentration ranges. The relative frequency distribution
shows 35 percent of the samples below 1,500 ug/L (500 ppmv) and 66.7 percent
below 100,000 ug/L (27,000 ppmv). The median is 9,000 ug/L and the mean is
160,000 ug/L.
Although much variability exists in both the nonleaking and contaminated
site data, significant differences can be seen between the two distributions.
A 10-fold difference exists between the means and the medians of each data
set. This 10-fold difference also exists between the numbers of samples with
concentrations above 10,000 ug/L (3,000 ppmv) for the two data sets. For
example, 29.6 percent of the nonleaking samples occurred in the range of
10,000 ug/L to 100,000 ug/L while 33.3 percent of the contaminated samples
concentrations occurred in the range of 100,000 ug/L to 1,000,000 ug/L.
Statistical data patterns associated with site location and sample depth
were delineated using non-parametric statistical methods. Statistically sig-
nificant differences were found to exist between the total hydrocarbon (less
light aliphatics) vapor concentrations among the five locations studied for
IV
-------
steel tank systems, vhereas these differences were not significant for fiber-
glass tank systems. Statistically significant differences also occurred
between the total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations
among the sample depths of 2, 6, and 10 feet for both steel and fiberglass
tank systems. Higher concentrations were found at the lower depths.
A fresh spill at one station in Austin provided an opportunity to add
butane to the list of analytes under study. The butane concentration in 15
soil gas samples taken during the first 4 days after the spill occurred ranged
from 530 ug/L to 300,000 ug/L. Butane was also sampled at sites in Storrs,
Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, both of which had no evidence of
recent leaks or spills. At these two sites, butane concentrations in 65 soil
gas samples ranged from the minimum detection limit of 0.02 ug/L to 930 ug/L.
The large difference between the butane concentrations at the fresh spill site
in Austin and the nonleaking sites in Connecticut and Rhode Island suggests
that butane may be a good indicator of a fresh spill or leak.
Because there are no standard procedures for estimating and reporting
total hydrocarbon concentration data, GCL evaluated different estimation
methods. It was determined that the best approximation of total hydrocarbon
(less light aliphatics) concentrations, based on available calibration data,
was achieved using an average RF calculated from the daily RFs of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-xylene.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Figures ix
Tables x
1. Purpose of Study 1
2. Site Selection 3
Locations 3
Service Stations 3
3. Geology, Hydrology, and Climate 5
Austin, Texas 5
Geology and Hydrology 5
Climate 6
Long Island Sound Area, New York, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut 6
Geology and Hydrology - Long Island, New York 6
Geology and Hydrology - Providence, Rhode Island ... 6
Geology and Hydrology - Storrs, Connecticut 6
Climate 7
San Diego Region, California 7
Geology and Hydrology 7
Climate 8
4. Field Methods 9
Sampling Strategy 9
Sampling Methods 10
Analytical Procedures . 10
5. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 12
QA Objectives for Measurement Data 12
GC Analyses 12
Soil Moisture Content Analyses 13
Sampling Procedures 14
Sample Custody 15
Calibration Procedures and Frequency 15
Analytical Procedures 15
Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 16
Internal Quality Control Checks 16
Performance and System Audits 16
Preventive Maintenance 16
Assessment of Data Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness . • 17
Corrective Actions I7
Quality Assurance Reports to Management 18
vi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
6. Reporting Methods 19
Determination of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations in ug/L . . 19
GC/FID Operation 20
Calculation of Total Hydrocarbons as Benzene 20
Calculation of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations Using
Average RFs 21
Determination of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations in PPM. . . 24
7. Results 26
Soil Gas Data 26
Contaminated Site Data 26
Expanded Austin Study 30
Characterization of Backfill Material 30
U-Tube Sampling 35
Ground-Uater Sampling 37
8. UST Regulations 41
Austin, Texas 41
Suffolk County, New York 41
San Diego, California 42
9. Tank Tightness Testing Records 43
10. Data Analysis 49
Empirical Distribution of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations
(Less Light Aliphatics) for Nonleaking Sites 50
Empirical Distribution of Total Hydrocarbon
Concentrations (Including Light Aliphatics) of Nonleaking
Sites 53
Comparison of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations for
Nonleaking Site and Contaminated Site Data Sets 53
Non-Parametric Statistical Testing 60
The Risks Associated with Hypothesis Testing 60
Comparison of Nonleaking Site and Contaminated Site
Data Distributions 61
Non-Parametric Testing for Data Patterns Within the
Nonleaking Data 62
Results and Conclusions of Data Analysis 68
11. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study 71
Conclusions 71
Recommendations for Further Study 71
12. References Cited 73
Appendices
A. Tank Summary 74
B. Summary of Field Notes and Conditions 77
C. Soil Gas Data and Site Maps 89
D. Supporting Documentation for Reporting Methods Evaluation .... 170
E. Contaminated Site Data 214
VII
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Typical UST arrangement 2
2 Ratio of BTEX to Total Hydrocarbons as Cumulative Percent of
Samples 23
3 Austin 6 median total hydrocarbon data 33
4 Austin 6 median C.-C, hydrocarbon data 34
5 U-Tube leak detection system 38
6 Non-contaminated site data distribution 57
7 Contaminated site data distribution 58
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Results of Replicate Analyses for Soil Moisture Content 14
2 Major components of API PS-6 Gasoline 24
3 Maximum Concentrations at Austin, Texas . . . 27
4 Maximum Concentrations at Long Island Sound Area . 28
5 Maximum Concentrations at San Diego, California . . . 29
6 Description of Contaminated Sites ' 31
7 Maximum Concentrations at Contaminated Sites 32
8 Moisture Ranges of Soil and Backfill Samples ! 36
9 U-Tube Vapor Samples Suffolk County, New York 39
10 Hydrocarbon Concentrations from Ground-Water Samples 40
11 Tank Tightness Test Results 44
12 Distribution of Nonleaking Site Data for Total Hydrocarbons Less
Light Aliphatics 51
13 Distribution of nonleaking Site Data for Total Hydrocarbons less
Light Aliphatics 51
14 Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations Less Light Aliphatics GREATER
Than 100,000 ug/L 52
15 Comparison of Total Hydrocarbons Including Light Aliphatics and
Less Light Aliphatics at Nonleaking Sites 54
16 Comparison of Total Hydrocarbons Including Light Aliphatics and
Less Light Aliphatics at Nonleaking Sites 54
17 Distribution of Contaminated Site Data for Total Hydrocarbons Less
Light Aliphatics 56
18 Comparison of Nonleaking and Contaminated Site Data Distributions
for Hydrocarbons Less Light Aliphatics 56
19 Results of Kruskal-tfallis Tests for Locations with Steel Tank
Systems Using Nonleaking Data 65
20 Results of Kruskal-Vallis Tests for Locations with Fiberglass Tank
Systems Using Nonleaking Data 65
21 Results of Page L Test for Differences in Data According to Sample
Depth 67
22 Results of Vilcoxon Tests for Differences in Data According to
Sample Depth 67
23 Descriptive Statistics for Total Hydrocarbon Less Light Aliphatics
Concentrations in Steel Tank Systems at Different Locations and
Sample Depths (ug/L) 6?
24 Descriptive Statistics for Total Hydrocarbon Less Light Aliphatics
Concentrations in Fiberglass Tank Systems at Different Depths
(ug/L) 7(i
IX
-------
SECTION 1
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Proposed Federal regulations to monitor ground-water contamination
around UST systems require the development of effective external and internal
leak detection methods. Soil gas sampling is an external detection method
which could prove useful in determining whether an UST is leaking.
In order to determine the effectiveness of soil gas surveys in leak
detection, a study was designed with the following goals:
* collection of soil gas data from sites where the tank system was
tested and found to be tight, providing background soil gas data,
and,
* comparison of these background data to soil gas data from sites
known to be contaminated by spills or leaks in order to identify a
data pattern which may be indicative of a leaking system.
To fulfill these goals, soil gas surveys were performed at 27 active
gasoline service stations in 3 diverse geographic regions. Hydrocarbon vapor
concentrations in the backfill surrounding the USTs were sampled and analyzed.
The term soil gas refers to vapors found in the interstitial area
between particles of sand or gravel (pores). Soil gas and soil vapor are used
interchangeably in this report. These vapors, often loaded with hydrocarbons
when a UST is leaking, escape into the gravel or sand which is used to
surround the tank during installation. This surrounding tank medium is called
backfill. Typically pea gravel is used for backfill around fiberglass tanks,
and sand around steel tanks. An overview of a typical UST arrangement is
shown in Figure 1.
-------
VENTS
FILLS
STEEL TANKS
VENT PIPING-^
-FIBERGLASS
TANK
SUBMERSIBLE
PUMP
PIPING
PAVED SURFACE-
ASPHALT OR CONCRETE
BACKFILL
PEAGRAVEL OR SAND
Figure 1. Typical UST arrangement.
2
-------
SECTION 2
SITE SELECTION
LOCATIONS
Soil-gas surveys were conducted at the following locations:
* Austin, Texas
San Oiego, California
• Long Island Sound area
Suffolk County, New York
Providence, Rhode Island
Storrs, Connecticut
Austin, San Diego, and Suffolk County, New York were originally selected
as the locations for the study because they were recognized as having exem-
plary local UST regulatory programs, and they represented different geograph-
ical situations. Stations in Providence and Storrs were added to provide a
broader data base from the Long Island Sound area, and to interact with the
UST evaluation program at the University of Connecticut.
Active regulatory programs were desired in order to assure that accurate
information would be available for the stations to be studied. Since a major
purpose of the study was to determine background soil vapor levels at clean,
well-managed stations, it was necessary to determine if leaks or spills had
previously occurred at the stations being tested. Records at Austin,
San Diego, and Suffolk County were carefully reviewed and all available infor-
mation was obtained concerning the specific stations to be studied.
Different geographical locations were desired for the study in order to
eliminate possible data bias that could occur if sampling were done at one
location. The selected locations represent a wide range of temperature,
humidity, geology, and topography. Although soil gas samples were taken pri-
marily from the backfill areas of the tanks, the surrounding geology and
climatic conditions can affect the concentration of vapors existing in the
backfill material.
SERVICE STATIONS
Three oil companies cooperated in the study by offering several of their
service stations as candidates for field testing. Twenty-seven stations were
selected which represent a variety of tank ages, tank materials, products
-------
stored, and backfill materials. The stations were selected according to the
following screening criteria:
The stations were to be clean, well-managed businesses with no major
environmental problems.
• Existing tanks were required to meet the appropriate operation
specifications.
• The tanks must have been in the ground and operational for at least
6 months prior to the site sampling.
• The stations were required to have relatively large total
throughputs of product since beginning operation and relatively
large • throughputs on a monthly basis.
• The stations were required to have good inventory control.
Twenty-seven service stations with 10 to 15 sample points at each
station were selected, providing a broad database with a variety of tanks,
backfills, and field conditions. There were a total of 100 USTs involved in
this study, of which 63 were made of steel and 37 of fiberglass. Tank instal-
lation dates ranged from 1940 to 1984 for steel tanks, and 1978 to 1984 for
fiberglass tanks. A listing of all of the tanks is shown in Appendix A.
-------
SECTION 3
GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND CLIMATE
This section briefly describes the geologic, hydrologic, and climatic
characteristics which may effect hydrocarbon soil gas concentrations within
the three study regions.
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Geology and Hydrology
Bedrock in the Austin area consists dominantly of limestones, marls, and
shales, all of Cretaceous age. Terrace deposits and alluvium locally overlie
the bedrock units in the present valley of the Colorado River and on terraces
representing older Quaternary drainage levels.
Station sites AU-2, AU-4, AU-5, and AU-6 all lie in outcrop areas of the
Upper Cretaceous Austin Group, which consists of chalk, limestone, and marly
limestone. A very thin (less than 5 feet) cover of sand and gravel terrace
deposits may be present at site AU-4. Site AU-5 lies within 100 feet of a
fault which exposes Cretaceous clay at the land surface on the side of the
fault opposite the station.
Sites AU-1 and AU-7 are located in areas of alluvial sand and gravel
comprising terrace deposits, but these deposits are probably less than 10 feet
thick at both sites. The alluvium is underlain by Lover Cretaceous clay of
the Del Rio Formation, a pyritic, gypsiferous, and calcareous shale unit which
may represent a barrier to ground water or soil gas movement.
Site AU-3 lies within a small exposure of altered volcanic tuff of
Cretaceous age, in an area consisting dominantly of Austin Group limestones.
A very thin cover of terrace deposits similar to those at AU-4 may also be
present at AU-3. As at site AU-5, a Cretaceous clay unit crops out within 100
feet of the AU-3 site, on the opposite side of a fault passing near the
station.
The Edwards aquifer underlying the Austin area is contained within lime-
stones of Cretaceous age. Depth to water in the Edwards aquifer is highly
dependent on topography, ranging from the land surface in river valleys to
over 250 feet below it in upland areas.
Elevation of the water table varies by as much as 50 feet over time,
depending on recharge and pumpage. Local zones of perched water occur above
-------
the Edwards aquifer in areas where impermeable lithologic units are present.
Ground water was encountered at a depth of 7 feet at sites AU-4 and AU-6, at a
depth of 9 feet at site AU-7, and at a depth of 10 feet at site AU-5.
Climate
The climate of Austin, Texas is humid subtropical with an average rain-
fall of 20 to 40 inches per year which is evenly distributed throughout the
year. During the first sampling period, September 28 through October 2, the
weather was partly cloudy to clear with temperatures ranging from 62°F to
92°F. The barometric pressure during this period ranged from 29.49 inches Hg
to 30.09 inches Hg. The second sampling period was October 26 to October 30.
The same weather patterns were seen with temperatures ranging from 70°F to
96°F and barometric pressures ranging from 29.84 inches Hg to 30.12 inches Hg.
Appendix B contains a summary of the actual field conditions.
LONG ISLAND SOUND AREA, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND, AND CONNECTICUT
Geology and Hydrology - Long Island, New York
Long Island consists dominantly of glacial till and outwash deposits
representing a terminal moraine formed during the Quaternary Period. Creta-
ceous and Tertiary rocks crop out locally in western Suffolk County, but are
not a really significant. All station sites examined for this project are
located in areas of glacial till.
Ground water on Long Island is contained within the glacial till and
local alluvial deposits of reworked glacial material. Depth to water varies
from about 10 to 100 feet on the Island. At site NY-2, ground water is about
22 feet below the surface. At all other Long Island sites, ground water is
between 60 and 90 feet below the surface.
Geology and Hydrology - Providence, Rhode Island
In the Providence area, Quaternary glacial deposits of varying thickness
overlie bedrock of Cambrian and Precambrian age. As on Long Island, ground
water is found at depths up to about 50 feet in the Rhode Island glacial
deposits. Ground-water conditions are not well known in many areas because
most public water supply is derived from surface sources. The depth to water
at the station sites is not known.
Geology and Hydrology - Storrs, Connecticut
In the Storrs area, Quaternary glacial deposits of varying thickness, up
to about 100 feet, overlie crystalline and metamorphic bedrock of Cambrian
and Ordovician age. Limited quantities of ground water are found in the
glacial fill, but water supply wells generally tap more extensive reserves in
fractures of the Paleozoic rocks. Depth to water at the Connecticut station
sites is 10 feet.
-------
Climate
The three Long Island Sound locations included in the study have
similar climatic conditions which are influenced by the continental and
oceanic weather systems. The average rainfall for these locations is from
40 to 60 inches per year. During the sampling period, September 22 to
September 25 in Suffolk County, the temperature ranged from 61°F to 75°F with
the barometric pressure ranging from 29.70 inches Hg to 29.94 inches Hg.
During the sampling visit to Storrs, Connecticut from November 11 to November
13, the temperatures ranged from 29°F to 51°F with snow and rain occurring on
November 11 and November 12. The barometric pressure during this time ranged
from 29.65 inches Hg to 29.99 inches Hg. The sampling visit to Rhode Island
during the period of December 9 to December 11, experienced 1 day of rain,
December 11, with temperatures ranging from 40°F to 58°F and the barometric
pressure ranging from 29.32 inches Hg to 29.83 inches Hg. Appendix B contains
a summary of actual field conditions at the time of sampling.
SAN DIEGO REGION, CALIFORNIA
Geology and Hydrology
The San Diego area of southern California contains two distinct physio-
graphic sections, a coastal plain section and a mountain-valley section. The
coastal plain section consists of Tertiary marine sediments, in many parts of
which wave-cut terraces are apparent, and through which alluvial valleys have
been cut between inland watersheds and the sea. The mountain-valley section
includes alluvium-filled valleys dissecting mountain ranges which are com-
prised of a wide variety of volcanic, sedimentary, and igneous rocks.
Station sites SD-1, SD-4, and SD-6 are located in Quaternary coastal
sediments overlain by a thin veneer of recent alluvium. All three of these
sites are at elevations within a few feet above sea level. Water was encoun-
tered 7 feet below the land surface at site SD-1 and 12 feet below the land
surface at site SD-6. Ground water probably exists at a shallow depth at
site SD-A, but was not encountered during the study.
Stations SD-3 and SD-7 are on a terrace of Tertiary sediments elevated
about 200 feet above sea level, and are located about 3 to 5 miles inland from
the sea. Depth to water at stations SD-3 and SD-7 is not known.
Stations SD-2 and SD-9 are located in valleys near the eastern margin of
the coastal plain section. At these locations alluvium of unknown but prob-
ably shallow depth overlies volcanic or metamorphic bedrock. Ground water
was encountered at a depth of 8 feet at site SD-2. Depth to water at site
SD-9 is unknown.
Sites SD-5 and SD-8 are in a broad valley within the mountain-valley
physiographic section. These sites are located on the residuum produced by
in-situ weathering of underlying volcanic bedrock. Based on information from
wells in the vicinity, depth to water at sites SD-5 and SD-8 is probably
between 10 and 25 feet.
-------
Climate
The coastal location of San Diego, California tempers the climate of
this city. Rainfall in San Diego ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches per year,
with 85 percent of this precipitation occurring during the months of November
through March. During the sampling period, September 15 through September 24,
the temperature ranged from '70°F to 86°P with 1 day of slight rain
(September 22). The barometric pressure during the sampling period ranged
from 29.90 inches Hg to 30.10 inches Hg. Appendix B contains a summary of
actual field conditions at the time of sampling.
-------
SECTION 4
FIELD METHODS
The field investigation consisted of on-site sampling and analysis of
soil gas at a total of 27 service stations in the 3 regional areas. TRC
performed the soil-gas sampling and the on-site analysis of the samples. TRC
also performed on-site analysis of backfill samples for each site to determine
soil moisture content. GCL was responsible for overall sampling strategy and
data quality assurance.
The field work began on September 14, 1987, in San Diego, California and
was completed on December 13, 1987, in Rhode Island. The field schedule was
as follows:
San Diego, CA
Suffolk County, NY
Austin, TX
Storrs, CT
Providence, RI
SAMPLING STRATEGY
9 Stations
5 Stations
4 Stations
3 Stations
2 Stations
4 Stations
September 14 - 24, 1987
September 21 - 25, 1987
September 28 - Oct. 2, 1987
October 26 - Oct. 30, 1987
November 10-13, 1987
December 10-13, 1987
The sampling strategy was designed to determine the range and spatial
distribution of hydrocarbons within the backfill of the USTs. The sampling
points were very close to the tanks because excavation and backfill typically
extended only 1 to 3 feet laterally from the edges of the tanks.
Soil-gas samples were collected only from the backfill areas of the tank
excavations. The specific sample sites were located at varying distances from
tank fill ports, pump chambers, and product and vent piping, all of which can
be sources of leaks. A typical sampling grid consisted of four or five sample
holes with samples collected at depths of 2, 6, and 10 feet in each hole.
Typically, 10 to 15 samples were collected at each service station.
Soil samples to determine moisture content of the backfill material were
taken from 50 percent of the sample points. These samples were analyzed
on-site by TRC personnel utilizing a portable oven and balance. Two soil
samples were collected at each station by GCL personnel. These samples were
sent to an independent certified laboratory, Professional Service Industries.
Inc. (PSI), for the determination of moisture content and particle size
distribution (sieve analysis).
-------
Some additional sampling other than for soil gas was performed at five
stations where some unusual conditions existed. This consisted of: 1) vapor
sampling from U-Tube monitoring systems at Stations 4 and 6 in Suffolk County,
New York, and 2) water sampling from shallow ground water at Stations 1 and 2
in Storrs, Connecticut, and Station 6 in Austin, Texas. The results of these
sampling and analyses are presented in Section 8 in U-Tube Sampling and
Ground-water Sampling, respectively.
SAMPLING METHODS
Soil-gas samples were collected by driving a hollow probe into the ground
to an appropriate depth and evacuating a small amount of soil gas (5 to 10 L)
using a vacuum pump. A hydraulic hammer was used to assist in driving probes
past cobbles and through unusually hard soil.
Probes consisted of 7-foot lengths of 3/4-inch diameter steel pipe which
were fitted with a detachable drive point. The above ground end of the sampl-
ing probe was fitted with a steel reducer, a silicone rubber tube, and poly-
ethylene tubing leading to the vacuum pump. Samples were collected in a
syringe during evacuation by inserting the syringe needle into the silicone
rubber evacuation line and drawing a sample from the gas stream.
A split spoon device was used to collect soil samples of backfill mate-
rial utilizing the probe holes that were used to collect the soil gas samples.
The soil samples were stored in sealed plastic bags prior to analysis.
Promptly upon completion of the sampling program at each site, all holes
made in the concrete or asphalt apron were patched to restore the integrity of
the apron.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
TRC used a mobile field laboratory which was equipped with GCs and
computing integrators. A flame ionization detector (FID) was used to measure
aliphatics, aromatics, and total hydrocarbons. The volatile aliphatics that
elute from the GC column before benzene were reported as a group called light
aliphatics. At 18 of the sites, the light aliphatics represent compounds such
as methane, ethane, propanes, butanes, and pentanes. These compounds were
reported as a group since it was difficult to identify individual peaks within
this range. At seven of the sites where butanes and pentanes could be quant-
ified, the concentration of light aliphatics represent methane, ethane, and
propanes. At these sites, a variation in the temperature program in the GC
was used to help clarify these peaks; however, some interference in peaks was
still observed.
Typically, three samples were analyzed from each sampling point and
operator judgement was used in the field to determine which of the various
results could be considered as reliable. Mean values were calculated in the
field based upon experienced operator judgement, and these averages were con-
sidered to be representative of the actual soil gas concentration at the indi-
vidual sample locations. This type of field judgement is generally used in
soil gas surveys because of the variability of the soil gas analysis technique
10
-------
and the skill required to achieve reproducible results. Means derived in this
manner were used in this study in order to provide data that is comparable to
existing soil gas data and to data that can be expected to be obtained in
future soil gas surveys.
11
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
QA OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA
GC Analyses
The GC was calibrated daily by measuring the instrumental area count for
each analyte against the known concentration of that analyte in a standard gas
mixture. The gases, which were traceable to those of the U.S. National Bureau
of Standards (NBS), were obtained from Scott Specialty Gases. The calibration
procedure is described in Section 5 in the Calibration Procedures and
Frequency paragraph of this report.
Because calibration was performed directly from the BTEX gas standard,
the independent accuracy check against another standard was not feasible.
Accuracy checks during the field day were performed against the same gas
standard used for initial calibration. These accuracy checks, generally two
or three per field day, were performed at the discretion of the analyst. All
RFs determined by the accuracy checks were within ±30 percent of those estab-
lished at the beginning of the field day, so no recalibrations during any
field day were required.
In order to assess analytical precision, analyses at each sample point
were done in triplicate, by injecting three separate aliquots of the sample
into the GC for analysis. In a few cases, where one of the injections clearly
produced anomalous results, additional injections were made as necessary to
yield three valid analytical runs. For each set of three analyses for each
component at each sample point, Tracer determined a mean value concentration
which is presented in Appendix C. The standard deviation exceeded 25 percent
of the mean value in 58 out of the 950 triplicate analyses (or 6.1 percent) in
which all three results exceeded the detection limit. Of this 6.1 percent,
the standard deviation exceeded 50 percent of the mean in only 11 cases, of
which 7 included analyses in which concentrations were so low as to be near
the analytical detection limit for the constituent of interest.
At sites where low total hydrocarbon and light aliphatic concentrations
were encountered, the detection limits for analytes of interest were normally
less than 0.10 ug/L, and in many cases were less than 0.05 ug/L. As antic-
ipated, detection limits for all analytes were much higher in locations whei'e
high hydrocarbon concentrations were encountered. Detection limits for all
non-detected compounds are reported in the accompanying data sets in
Appendix C.
12
-------
The detection limits were determined by the GC chemist for each compound
in each sample. To determine the detection limit, the chemist must estimate
what the smallest quantifiable peak for each analyte would be, based on other
peaks in the chromatogram. The chemist's judgment is important in estimating
detection limits, since they are influenced by several factors, not all of
which are quantifiable. These factors include the volume of sample injection,
the concentration of the compound of interest relative to other constituents
present, chromatographic interference from other compounds (adjacent peaks),
and the presence of background noise.
Soil Moisture Content Analyses
Due to sampling and analytical problems encountered in the field, Tracer
reported fewer soil moisture analytical results than were originally antici-
pated. Sample splits, and in some locations the majority of soil samples,
were sealed in air-tight containers and submitted by GCL to PSI in
Albuquerque, New Mexico for moisture content analysis. PSI submitted results
for 42 soil samples, and Tracer submitted results for 26 samples. Because of
inconsistent sample identification, particularly in New York and Rhode Island,
it was not always possible to identify which Tracer samples were in fact
splits of PSI samples.
Table 1 lists and compares all soil moisture replicate analyses identi-
fied in a review of the Tracer and PSI data. In most cases, the laboratory
values agree well with those obtained in the field, but significant discrep-
ancies exist for the data at sites AU-2 and SD-2.
13
-------
TABLE 1. RESULTS OF REPLICATE ANALYSES FOR SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT
Site
AU-1
AU-2
SD-2
NY-2
NY-4
NY-5
NY-6
(All analytical
Tracer
Sample Number
8709291807
8709300935
8709161636
NY2-SG4-10
NY4-SG4-10
NY5-SG4-10
NY6-SG2-10
values in percent
PSI
Sample Number
8709301819
8709301825
8709300940
8709300946
8709161637
8709231230
8709241545
8709241600
8709251310
8709251800
8709251830
by weight)
Tracer
Analytical
Value
14.7
12.4
11.3
10.0
5.0
6.9
5.7
PSI
Analytical
Value
13
11
4
3
20
7
3
5
8
5
6
There is good internal consistency among the values reported for replicate
samples which were both sent to the PSI lab.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Soil gas sampling was performed at each site. At the request of EPA
EMSL, sample points were confined to the area of the backfill immediately
adjacent to the USTs at each site, and in a few cases to soil just outside the
backfill. There were generally no more than six sample points per site, and
samples were normally taken from three depths at each point.
A total of 78 soil samples, mostly backfill material, were analyzed for
moisture content. The samples were not uniformly distributed among the sites
because of difficulties encountered in obtaining soil samples at some loca-
tions and the realization that moisture content was of little use in others,
14
-------
such as sices where the backfill material consisted of pea gravel. The values
reported in this document represent only samples that were properly packaged,
transported, and analyzed.
SAMPLE CUSTODY
Chain-of-custody procedures were followed for all soil samples sent to
PSI for moisture content or sieve analysis. Chain-of-custody forms for these
samples are on file at the GCL office in Albuquerque.
CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
The GC was calibrated daily, using gas standards obtained from Scott
Specialty Gases. These standards are traceable to those of the NBS. Two
separate three-point calibration curves were established, one for light ali-
phatic hydrocarbons C1-C5 and one for the aromatic hydrocarbons C -Cg.
However, the curve used to quantify hydrocarbons Cg-C9 was established using
the BTEX gas standard rather than an aqueous standard. It was found that this
procedure yielded accurate and replicable results. An aqueous standard was
also used which produced a RF that did not accurately quantify the gaseous
BTEX standard; these results were not used in the analyses. Additional
calibration and accuracy checks were made periodically during each field day,
and RF's were then revised as necessary. Recalculation of RF's during the
field day was not found to be necessary at any site.
Isopentane was not originally included among the compounds to be specifi-
cally isolated under the original Work Plan. However, GCL and Tracer were
subsequently requested by the EPA to attempt a determination of isopentane
concentrations at selected locations. Since no standard for isopentane had
been provided in the field, isopentane values were determined after field work
was complete by reanalyzing the chromatograms to identify the isopentane peak.
A RF for isopentane was defined by comparison with the known RF for benzene, a
gas which had been included among the standards available in the field.
To assure the cleanliness of sampling equipment, syringe blanks and
system blanks (air samples) were taken and analyzed each morning and periodi-
cally during the day.
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Analytical procedures are described in Section 4 in the Analytical Proce-
dures paragraph of this report. All soil gas analyses for BTEX and for total
hydrocarbons were performed by Tracer personnel in accordance with the pro-
cedures described in Section 2, except for the treatment of samples yielding
total hydrocarbon values greater than 500 ug/L. Experience during the first
day of field work indicated that reducing the injection size for such samples
resulted in obscuration of the chromatogram peaks for hydrocarbons Cg-CQ
(gasoline constituents), while not significantly improving the accuracy of
lighter aliphatic measurements. Since the use of smaller injection sizes
resulted in a great loss of data, the practice was discontinued.
15
-------
DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
Data presented to GCL by Tracer were recorded and analyzed. The results
of the analyses performed are described in Section 10 of this report.
Some extreme values (outliers) identified in the original data recorded
on-site were discarded from the data set by Tracer because the on-site chem-
ist, based on his field experience, believed them not to be representative of
actual hydrocarbon concentrations in the sample analyzed (see Section 5 in
the Assessment of Data Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness paragraph of this
report). Consequently, GCL has made no attempt to identify or explain the few
outliers remaining in the data set, which would require excessive time and
yield little information.
The data presented in this report have been subjected to Tracer's inter-
nal review process, and have been spot-checked for accuracy by GCL personnel.
Although a few minor errors were detected and corrected during the GCL review,
and a few others undoubtedly remain in the large data set, GCL is confident
that such errors represent a very minor portion of the total body of data.
INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
GC calibration procedures and frequency were described in Section 5 in
the Calibration Procedures and Frequency paragraph of this report. As a
standard part of Tracer's analytical procedure, daily blanks consisting of
pure nitrogen, of air, and of air drawn through a soil gas probe and adapter
(system blank) were analyzed. These blanks were repeated as necessary during
the field day, and specifically after any event which was suspected to affect
analytical results. Soil gas samples at each point were analyzed in tripli-
cate, as described in Section 5 in the GC Analyses paragraph of this report,
and duplicate soil samples for moisture content analysis were taken at
selected points, as described in Section 5 in the Soil Moisture Content
Analyses paragraph of this report.
Triplicate soil gas analyses were performed to assess the replicability
of concentration data. This replicability was measured by computing a stand-
ard deviation for each triplicate analyses. Duplicate soil samples were taken
only as check samples and did not require three values for statistical
computations.
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS
A field system audit and evaluation of operational procedures was per-
formed in San Diego on September 17, 1987, by the GCL QA Officer. Minor mod-
ifications to field sampling and analytical procedures were discussed with
project field personnel and approved by the QA Officer at that time.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
All equipment was maintained in operable condition during the field work.
Spare parts and new equipment were obtained as necessary to complete field
work in a timely manner.
16
-------
ASSESSMENT OF DATA PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS
The data presented in this report are complete in the sense that all
values believed to represent valid analyses have been included. GC analysis
as a procedure is subject to interpretation by the GC operator, who must
evaluate each run on the basis of his experience to determine its validity.
Volume of sample injection, concentrations of the analytes of interest, and
possible residual effects of previous sample runs must be considered by the
operator in deciding whether to accept the concentrations indicated for any
given sample injection. Concentration values which were clearly in error,
were rejected by the GC operator in the field, and are not included in the
data set. Some other values which appear to be outliers inconsistent with the
rest of the data set have been included in the tabulated analytical results,
but were not used in determining the mean values of the triplicate analyses'
reported in Appendix C. In some of these cases, the outlying values were
excluded by Tracer in calculation of the mean concentration, but were
included in calculation of the standard deviation. GCL and Tracer have
attempted to indicate such points where such operator judgment was exercised.
These undoubtedly represent far less than one percent of the total data set.
During the course of the project, Tracer was asked to recalculate the
total hydrocarbon concentrations to show them relative to the BTEX total,
rather than as benzene. Consequently, the mean values used in the data
analysis (Section 10) for total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) differ
from the means of the values taken from individual GC/FID injections. The
standard deviations for the total hydrocarbon data were calculated on the
basis of the values reported as benzene, and consequently should not be
applied directly to the total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) data
calculated from average daily RFs for BTEX.
Concentration values reported in ug/L for analytes of interest in this
report are normally given to two significant figures if greater than 10 ug/L,
and to one significant figure if less than 10 ug/L. As illustrated by the
standard deviations presented with this data set, and based on Tracer's exper-
ience in soil gas analyses, instrumental precision does not normally justify
greater precision in the reporting of results.
Further information regarding analytical accuracy, precision and replica-
bility was presented in Section 5 in the QA Objectives for Measurement Data
paragraph of this report.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
During the field system audit, the requirements for proper chain-of-
custody procedures were explained to some site personnel who were not fully
aware of them. Samples previously taken for soil moisture content analysis
had been properly handled, but the QA Officer felt that additional explanation
was necessary to prevent the possibility of future problems.
No other corrective actions were found to be necessary during field work.
Problems with Tracer's handling procedure of the soil moisture samples were
discovered too late to be remedied by GCL personnel.
17
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
Monthly quality assurance reports were submitted during the course of the
project.
18
-------
SECTION 6
REPORTING METHODS
One of the problems encountered in this study concerned the calculation
and reporting of the total hydrocarbon concentration data. Different prac-
tices in calculating and reporting these data were discovered within the envi-
ronmental industry and among those who collect and analyze soil gas data.
For example, some leak detection devices were found to report total hydro-
carbons in ppmv as hexane, and others in ppmv as butane (Radian). Addition-
ally, laboratories using GC/FID equipment to analyze soil gas, report total
hydrocarbon concentrations in ug/L (Tracer). The method of determining total
hydrocarbon concentration values using a GC/FID also vary. A GC/FID must use
a RF based on the calibration of a known gas to determine the concentration of
an unknown gas. This calibration gas, or gas standard may be benzene,
toluene, or some other hydrocarbon compound.
Because of these variations, GCL evaluated different estimation methods
to determine the most appropriate method for reporting total hydrocarbon
concentrations. In this method evaluation, both the calculations and their
accuracy were examined. Since these data may be used in developing threshold
limits between nonleaking and contaminated sites, they must be comparable to
soil gas data determined by different methods.
The evaluation consisted of two parts:
Calculation of total hydrocarbon concentrations in ug/L from
the calibration of the GC/FID, reported both as benzene and
according to an average RF, and
* Calculation of total hydrocarbon concentrations in parts per
million (ppm).
DETERMINATION OF TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/L
The field investigation phase of this study required that soil gas
samples be collected and analyzed at nonleaking sites. Recall that non-
leaking sites were determined according to current tank testing procedures
which report tightness at less than 0.05 gallons per hour (gph). These
samples were analyzed on-site using a portable GC/FID. The results of these
analyses yield concentration values in ug/L. Section 6 in the GC/FID Opera-
tion paragraph of this report, contains a brief discussion on the function of
a GC/FID and the procedure used to calculate the total hydrocarbon concentra-
tions from the GC/FID in the field. This procedure uses benzene as the cali-
bration gas. Section 6 in the Calculation of Total Hydrocarbons as Benzene
19
-------
paragraph of this report, discusses a more accurate method used to calculate
total hydrocarbon concentrations in ug/L using data from all the calibration
gases.
GC/FID Operation
A GC is an analytical instrument that can be used to separate volatile
organic compounds for analysis (EPA Methods 8000). A GC equipped with a FID
can be used to generate a chromatogram that consists of peaks corresponding to
different compounds. The complete analytical system used in the field inves-
tigation of this study consisted of a chromatographic packed column containing
Alltech OV101, a hydrogen FID, an integrator-recorder, calibration gases, and
glass syringes (Tracer).
Calibration gases were used to generate a chromatogram that formed a
baseline or standard of peaks in the chromatogram. RFs, defined as the ratio
of the mass of each gas standard injected to the integrated area of the peak
produced by that mass, were determined for each gas standard. Individual
hydrocarbon compounds in the soil gas samples were identified by a comparison
of sample chromatograms to the standard chromatogram. Concentrations of
individual compounds were calculated from the RFs for the corresponding gas
standard.
Concentrations of individual compounds were determined in ug/L. This is
based on the principal of operation of the FID in which pyrolysis of organic
compounds produces ionic intermediate compounds that can carry an electric
current. The resulting current flows through the flame, and the ions are
collected and measured. The current responds linearly to the mass of carbon
in the sample, and consequently, RFs and concentrations are measured in mass
units (Tracer).
The calibration gas standards used were methane, benzene, toluene, ethyl-
benzene, and ortho-xylene. Concentrations of each of these compounds in each
sample were calculated directly using the corresponding calibration gas RF and
the sample injection size. However, concentrations for total hydrocarbons
(less light aliphatics) were required to be approximated.
Calculation of Total Hydrocarbons as Benzene
During the field investigation, total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics)
concentrations were approximated by using the RF for benzene to compute the
concentrations. During the data analysis, it was discovered that this approx-
imation yielded a low estimate of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics)
concentrations. This discovery was made by a comparison of the combined con-
centrations of BTEX to the total hydrocarbon concentration (less light ali-
phatics). This comparison, shown in Appendix D, indicates that the concentra-
tion of BTEX was greater than the concentration of total hydrocarbons (less
light aliphatics) in 30 percent of the samples.
A possible cause for the discrepancy between the concentrations of total
hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) and BTEX could have been an erroneous
20
-------
interpretation o£. the chromatogram peaks. However, a reexamination of the
chromatograms showed that no interpretation errors had occurred.
The discrepancy was determined to be the result o£ using the benzene RFs
for the approximation of total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentra-
tions. By an examination of the RFs for all of the gas standards (Appendix
C), it was found that the benzene RF was usually lower when compared to RFs
for toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-xylene. In theory, RFs for similar
hydrocarbon compounds should be similar. However, in practice, RFs vary
because of chemical and instrument effects.
Because of the discrepancies between the total hydrocarbon (less light
aliphatics) concentrations and the combined BTEX concentrations, a better
approximation of total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentrations was
needed. This was considered important because these values obtained from non-
leaking sites may affect the development of threshold limits to be used to
distinguish between contaminated and nonleaking sites.
Calculation of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations Using Average RFs
The total hydrocarbon concentration in a soil gas sample is actually the
summation of all the hydrocarbon compounds that can be detected from the GC/
FID analysis. To accurately determine this concentration would require that a
gas standard be analyzed in the GC/FID for every compound that existed in the
soil gas. This comprehensive type of analysis was considered impractical
since an enormous amount of GC/FID calibration work would have been necessary
to quantitatively analyze all the peaks in the soil gas samples.
The best approximation, based on the available calibration data, was to
determine total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) using the average of the
RFs for all the calibration gases (less light aliphatics). Therefore, total
hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentrations were calculated from an
average of the daily RFs for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-xylene.
This approximation resulted in new total hydrocarbon (less light ali-
phatics) concentrations that were generally higher. A comparison of total
hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentrations calculated from average
BTEX RFs and as benzene is shown below.
Total Hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) Percentage of
Concentrations Samples
As Benzene > As BTEX Average 8.6 percent
As Benzene = As BTEX Average 15.1 percent
As Benzene < As BTEX Average 76.3 percent
In the case where the new values (as BTEX average) were greater than the
old values (as benzene), these new values ranged from 7 percent to about
100 percent higher. A comparison of the old values and new values for each
sample is provided in Appendix D.
21
-------
The new concentrations also result in values that are larger than the
combined BTEX concentrations which indicates a more reasonable approximation
of total hydrocarbon concentration. A comparison of the BTEX and the new
total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentrations are shown in Appendix
The calculation of total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentra-
tions using the average BTEX RFs was found to be a better approximation than
when using only benzene because it accounted for variations in the RFs.
However, it is understood that some error still exists in this method because
several peaks in the chromatograms and their corresponding compounds were not
identified and quantified.
To better understand the extent that compounds other than BTEX are con-
tained in total hydrocarbons, a comparison of the combined BTEX concentrations
to total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) concentrations (calculated from
average BTEX RFs) was made. These results are shown in Figure 2. The tabular
data used to generate this figure is included in Appendix D. The percentage
of samples where the BTEX concentrations were less than 50 percent of total
hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) was about 59 percent of the total
samples. This means that in about 59 percent of the samples, compounds other
than BTEX make up the majority of the total hydrocarbon concentrations.
The result that compounds other than BTEX make up the majority of the
total hydrocarbon concentration in most of the samples is not surprising when
the composition of gasoline is considered. A typical gasoline contains sev-
eral hundred hydrocarbon compounds, each falling into one of four chemical
groups: paraffins, olefins, napthenes, or aromatics (NM BID). The aromatics,
which includes BTEX, are considered most important because they are relatively
soluble in water, and therefore, present a risk of ground-water contamination.
Table 2 shows a list of major components of an API PS-6 Gasoline, some of
which can be expected to be present in soil gas. These compounds represent C
to C10 molecules (API 1985). 4
Some selected sample chromatograms from Suffolk County, New York,
San Diego, California, and Austin, Texas, were qualitatively analyzed for a
wide range of compounds where BTEX was found to represent less than 10 percent
of the total hydrocarbon concentration. These qualitative analyses identified
some additional compounds: methane, butane, isopentane, 2-methylhexane, iso-
octane, and octane. These chromatograms are shown in Appendix D.
DETERMINATION OF TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM
The concentration of extremely dilute solutions are expressed in ppm.
Typically, liquid solutions are expressed in parts per million by weight
(ppmw) and gaseous solutions are expressed in ppmv, (Himmelblau 1974).
PPMV is a measurement unit that is commonly used in the environmental
industry for reporting air pollutant concentrations (Uark and Warner 1981).
Many leak detection systems report hydrocarbon contamination in soil gas in
ppmv (Radian 1980). Therefore, ppmv was considered appropriate rather than
ppmv.
22
-------
OQ
I
m
(VJ
§?
l-t
>-••
o
o
H
O
I
n
O
(Si O
OJ pi
l/l
O
n
-o
a>
n
o
a>
1
•o
RATIO OF BTEX TO TOTAL HYDROCARBONS VS
o
3
r
O
e
CD
O
z
1
o
CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF SAMPLES
100
-------
TABLE 2. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF API PS-6 GASOLINE
Compound
2-Methylbutane
M-Xylene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylpentane
N-Butane
1,2, 4-Tirimethylbenzene
N-Pentane
2,3, 4-Tr ime thylpen tane
2,3, 3-Trimethylpen tane
3-methylpentane
0-Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
P-Xylene
2 , 3-Dimethylbutane
N-Hexane
1-Methyl, 3-Ethylbenzene
1-Methyl, 4-Ethylbenzene
3-Methylhexane
8.72
5.66
5.22
4.73
3.93
3.83
3.26
3.11
2.99
2.85
2.36
2.27
2.00
1.94
1.72
1.66
1.58
1.54
1.54
1.30
ppmv is defined as:
1 Ppmv = 1 volume of gaseous pollutant Equation 1
106 volumes of pollutant & air
The data in ug/L can be converted to ppmv by the following equation:
UK RT
ppmv = -jfi- x p (Hol Wt) Equation 2
where:
ppmv = parts per million by volume
ug/L = micrograms per liter
R = gas constant = 0.08205 atm liter
gmole • K
P = pressure in atmosphere
T = temperature in K
Mol Wt = molecular weight of hydrocarbon
This equation was derived from the ideal gas equation (Uark and Warner
1981). The temperature and pressure used in these calculations represented
the ambient conditions measured in the field at each site.
The assumption of an ideal gas was justified by examining a mean com-
pressibility factor. The mean compressibility factor is a factor that is
24
-------
introduced into the ideal gas equation to account for non-ideal or real gas
relationships. Therefore, the ideal gas equation becomes:
PV = ZniiRT Equation 3
where:
Zm = mean compressibility factor
If calculations can show that Zm is approximately equal to one for the
soil gas mixtures, then the assumption that the soil gas samples in this study
can be approximated to an ideal gas is valid one (Himmelblau 1974).
Two cases were examined in testing this assumption. Because the complete
composition of soil gas is not known, Case 1 assumed soil gas contains 80 per-
cent air and Case 2 assumed soil gas contains 20 percent air. The mean com-
pressibility factor was determined to be 0.99 for Case 1 and 0.85 for Case 2.
Therefore, the ideal gas assumption introduces about 1 to 15 percent error in
calculating hydrocarbon concentrations in soil gas. This small deviation (1
to 15 percent) from the ideal gas assumption is reasonable since the pressure
conditions are low, and the hydrocarbons in the mixture are similar in their
chemical nature. These temperatures and pressure effects are considered when
converting from mg/L to ppmv.
The conversion calculations from ug/L to ppmv were made for each sample
and each compound within that sample. The molecular weight of each compound
was used in the conversion calculation. However, for total hydrocarbons (less
light aliphatics), an average molecular weight was used. This average molec-
ular weight was based on the average of the BTEX concentrations at each
sample.
To compute total hydrocarbons (with light aliphatics), the light
aliphatics concentration was converted to ppmv and then added to total hydro-
carbons (less light aliphatics) in ppmv. In these calculations, the detection
limits were divided by two to approximate the actual concentration. A sample
calculation is shown in Appendix D. An actual concentration below the detec-
tion limit could be a value of zero up to the detection limit. Dividing the
detection limit by two approximates the concentration within this range.
The average of the BTEX concentrations was used to compute the average
molecular weight of each sample since BTEX concentrations were known at all
sample points. It is recognized that some error is introduced by using only
BTEX concentrations. However, this is considered to be the best approximation
possible from the available data. Reporting hydrocarbon concentrations in ppm
may be useful for some purposes, however, reporting them in ug/L provides more
accurate values based on fewer assumptions.
25
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS
SOIL GAS DATA
The maximum soil gas concentration values determined in this study are
presented in Table 3 for the sites in Austin, Table 4, for the sites in the
Long Island Sound area, and Table 5 for those in the San Diego area.
Average hydrocarbon vapor concentration data for all 27 gasoline service
stations are presented in Appendix C. The average hydrocarbon vapor concen-
tration data, in most cases, represent mean values for each set of three
GC/FID analyses for each sample. These data are presented in two formats:
1) concentration values listed by sample number and depth, and 2) concentra-
tion values listed by depth and sample number. In the second format, computed
average concentrations for all samples at each depth are shown. Additionally,
each site map contains an average total hydrocarbon concentration computed
from concentrations at each depth within each hole. In computing these
average concentrations, the concentrations reported at detection limits were
divided by two to approximate the actual concentration.
A pipeline was accidentally punctured during the investigations at
Station 6 in Austin, Texas. Data were collected during 4 consecutive days at
this station to study soil gas migration under dynamic conditions. These
data are also included in Appendix C.
Data in Appendix C is presented both in ug/L and ppmv.
CONTAMINATED SITE DATA
Soil gas surveys were previously conducted at a number of UST sites in
which product spills were known to have occurred. Data from 27 sites were
examined as candidates. Of these sites, eight were selected as being appro-
priate for comparison purposes because site maps were available and contamina-
tion was known to exist. Data collected form Austin Station 6 was included
as Site 9 since data Iron this station represents a fresh spill.
26
-------
TABLE 3. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
(All concentration values in ug/L)
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Light
Aliphatics
C1-C5
(as Methane)
•790,000
210,000
120,000
870,000
1,500,000
Ethyl-
Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes
7,400 5,300 (310 2,300
16.000 17,000 160 21,000
3,300 1,700 <63 410
97,000 85,000 <680 83,000
24,000 26,000 25,000 8,200
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics )
21.000
63,000
5,700
210,000
1,100,000
Tank
Tightness
Test
Results
Tight
Tight
NR
NR
Tight
Station 6
10/27/87
10/28/87
10/29/87
710.000
8,600
13,000
110,000
27,000
<250
90,000
83,000
<290
<220
<250
<270
<240
70,000
<260
10/30/87
4,800
53,000
1,600
<20
960,000
790,000
690,000
290,000
Station 7
59,000
<42
<48
-------
TABLE 4, MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AT LONG ISLAND SOUND AREA
Light
Aliphatics
(as
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Station 1
Station 2
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
STORKS. CT
Station 1
Station 2
PROVIDENCE , RI
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
15
Methane)
, UY
<40
140
<24
4
15
25,000
11,000
8
72
9
2.800
(All concentration values in ug/L)
Total
Hydrocarbons
Benzene Toluene
2,700 11,000
<29 420
3,700 1,000
2,300 13,000
<0.6 55
<10 840
<6 <6
<0.1 110
23 230
<0.08 0.8
670 1,400
Ethyl-
benzene
12,000
130
<37
2,900
<0.7
<6
<7
130
<0.1
<0.1
4007
Xylenes
10,000
<41
<42
91
<0.8
<8
2,300
110
130
<0.2
840
(less light
aliphatics )
270,000
2,100
69,000
110,000
1,500
3,700
49,000
590
1,400
0.3
24,000
Tank
Tightness
Test
Results
NR
Tight
NR
NR
NR
Leak
NR
NR
Tight
NR
Leak
Notations:
NAZ 3 Not analyzed.
NR a No records available showing tank tightness results.
Notes:
(1) Total hydrocarbons are reported as less light aliphatics to reflect a profile of con-
pounds similar to gasoline, and to exclude products of naturally-occurring degradation.
(2) <310 means the compound was analyzed but not detected within this detection limit. The
detection limit varies according to sample injection size and compound.
(3) Total hydrocarbons are calculated from average RFs for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and ortho-xylene.
(4) At stations in Storrs, CT and Providence. RI. the light aliphatics' concentrations
represent ^-Cj peaks.
IS) Tight means tightness test results were <0.05 gph.
28
-------
TABLE 5. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Light
Aliphatics
C1~C5
las Methane)
48,000
110,000
22
420,000
55,000
33,000
390,000
21,000
280,000
(All concentration values in ug/L)
Total
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
<89
<89
(0.1
<90
<86
(83
(90
(91
(98
Toluene
11,000
11,000
17
17,000
2,600
23,000
31,000
22,000
32,000
Ethyl-
benzene Xylenes
(120 4.900
(120 5,100
(0.05 0.8
(0.1 1,800
<0.1 1,600
(0.1 10,000
<0.1 8,800
(0.1 8,600
<0.1 8,200
(less light
aliphatics )
31,000
77,000
62
110.000
7,700
58,000
210,000
120,000
110,900
Tank
Tightness
Test
Results
Tight
Tight
Tight
Tight
Tight
Tight
Tight
Tight
NR
Notations:
NAZ m Not analyzed.
NR = No records available showing tank tightness results.
Notes :
(1) Total hydrocarbons are reported as less light aliphatics to reflect a profile of
compounds similar to gasoline, and to exclude products of naturally-occurring
degradation.
(2) Total hydrocarbons are calculated from average RPs for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and ortho-xylene.
(31 (310 means the compound was analysed but not detected within this detection limit. The
detection limit varies according to sample infection site and compound.
(4) Tight means tightness test results were (0.05 gph.
29
-------
Table 6 gives a brief description of these sites and Table 7 presents
the maximum concentration data for them. These sites include active service
stations ou fueling facilities. Site data are presented in Appendix E.
Specific sample locations at these sites were selected for use in the con-
taminated site database because of their close proximity to the tanks or
contamination source. It was desirable to use sampling points close to the
tanks so that the data would be comparable to the clean site data collected
from the tank backfill areas under this study. A summary of the soil gas data
is included in Appendix E. Total hydrocarbon values are reported less light
aliphatics, and as benzene.
EXPANDED AUSTIN STUDY
A 4-day study was conducted at Austin Station 6 to take advantage of a
spill that occurred when a product line was punctured during the field inves-
tigations. Approximately 15 gallons of super unleaded gas were spilled. Soil
gas samples were taken from the same holes each day and the results are
included in Appendix C. Figure 3 shows the concentration of total hydro-
carbons for each of the 4 days at 2-foot and 6-foot depths, and Figure 4
shows the corresponding concentrations of C4-Cfi components.
This intensified study provided the following basic information:
* Total hydrocarbon concentrations increased initially to
>100,000 ug/L near the spill site and higher concentrations migrated
into the entire backfill area.
* Total hydrocarbon concentrations decreased after peaking 1 day after
the spill.
* High concentrations of C4-Cfi components were found to parallel the
total hydrocarbon concentrations.
* Since high concentrations of G.-Cfi components were not usually
encountered in the field sampling at nonleaking stations, it may be
possible to use C.-C( concentrations, as compared to those of total
hydrocarbons, to detect fresh leaking conditions. More study is
required to confirm this preliminary indication.
CHARACTERIZATION OF BACKFILL MATERIAL
Soil moisture and particle size of the backfill materials impacts
hydrocarbon vapor concentrations because of liquid/vapor partitioning and
porosity effects. Consequently, soil moistures and sieve analyses were
performed on soil samples collected from the backfill of the nonleaking
sites. A summary of the results of these sample analyses are presented in
Table 8.
Backfill soil material at steel tank installations included fine, medium,
and silty sands while the backfill at fiberglass tank installations were of
30
-------
TABLE 6. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAMINATED SITES
Site 1 New Service Station. Tanks were tested tight, but
found floating product in ground water. Ground-water
depth = 8'.
Site 2 Active Service Station.
Site 3 Active Service Station. Floating product in ground
water. Ground-water depth = 15' - 20'.
Site 4 Active Fueling Facility. Pipeline leak. No ground-
water contamination. Ground-water depth = >20'.
Site 5 Active Fueling Facility. Ground-water depth = 12'.
Site 6 Active Service Station. No ground-water
contamination. Ground-water depth = 15'.
Site 7 Active Fueling Facility.
Site 8 Active Service Station. Floating product on ground
water. Ground-water depth = 25' - 35'.
Site 9 Active Service Station (Austin 6). Spill resulting
from product like puncture.
Note: These sites were selected from TRC files to develop database of
hydrocarbon vapor concentrations for sites with known hydrocarbon
contaminated.
31
-------
TABLE 7. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AT CONTAMINATED SITES
(All concentration values in ug/L)
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Light
Aliphatics
C1-C5
(as Methane)
1. 200,000
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
100,000
Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene
100,000 68,000 61,000
<10 1,200 120
NAZ 31,000 NAZ
780 620 SO
26,000 11,000 <850
<230 4,000 <58
<55 1,700 <80
60,000 40,000 NAZ
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
Xylenes aliphatics)
NAZ 2,200,000
140 19,000
NAZ 400.000
<4.5 15.000
<900 280.000
<61 210,000
<80 9,500
NAZ 800,000
Notations :
NAZ = Not analyzed.
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Total hydrocarbons are reported as less light aliphatics to reflect a profile of
compounds similar to gasoline, and to exclude products of naturally-occurring
degradation.
Total hydrocarbons are calculated from average RFs for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and ortho-xylene.
32
-------
AUSTIN 6 MEDIAN TOTAL HYDROCARBON DATA
I
O
T O
O >
s
a
§
O
z
O
^^
c
tO
700
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 H
OVER TIME
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
1771 2' DEPTH IV\1 6' DEPTH
Figure 3. Austin 6 median total hydrocarbon data.
\
DAY 4
-------
u>
n
*•
i
u O
o Z
iO
\
AUSTIN 6 MEDIAN C4-C6 HYDROCARBON DATA
700
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 J
200 -
100 -
OVER TIME
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
(771 2' DEPTH IV\1 6' DCPFH
Figure 4. Austin 6 median C,-C, hydrocarbon data.
DAY 4
-------
fine gravel, gravelly sand, and coarse sand mixed vith gravel. Moisture
contents were higher in the sands than in the gravels and the porosities of
the sands were less than those of the gravels.
Because gravel is more porous and less moist, hydrocarbons will likely
move more quickly through gravel backfill than through sand. Also, moisture
will tend to inhibit the movement of hydrocarbons and will absorb hydrocarbons
through liquid/vapor partitioning.
U-TUBE SAMPLING
Leak detection methods are classified into four groups: Volumetric,
Nonvolumetric, Inventory Control, and Leak Effects methods (EPA). Methods
within the Leak Effects classification are those that identify leaks by
examining the environmental effects of the leak. Those methods usually
require the installation of monitor wells and chemical analysis.
Since soil gas contamination is an environmental effect that can result
from a leaking UST system, then soil gas sampling, as performed in the field
investigation of this study, would be classified as a Leak Effects method.
Another method for monitoring leaks within the Leak Effects classifica-
tion utilizes a U-Tube device. The U-Tube consists of a 4-inch diameter,
schedule 40, PVC pipe installed as shown in Figure 5.
These tubes were installed under each tank within the backfill material
at Stations 4 and 6 in Suffolk County, New York.
A comprehensive comparison of leak detection methods was not within the
scope of this project. However, two stations with U-Tubes were included in
the study in order to make a comparison of hydrocarbon vapor concentrations
from U-Tubes versus hydrocarbon vapor concentrations in soil gas.
The method of collecting soil gas samples from the backfill areas was
presented in Section 4 in the Sampling Methods paragraph of this report.
Briefly, soil gas samples were collected by inserting a hollow probe into the
backfill and evacuating a soil gas sample using a vacuum pump. Vapor samples
from the U-Tubes were also collected by inserting a hollow probe to the
desired depth in the U-Tube and evacuating a sample using a vacuum pump.
Samples were collected near the bottom of the U-Tubes to minimize the effects
of dilution from the outside air.
Since vapor samples from the U-Tubes were collected near the bottom of
the U-Tubes, these data were compared to soil gas samples collected from the
backfill at the 10-foot depth. The U-Tube samples and soil gas samples (at
10 feet) are shown in Table 9.
At Station 4 in Suffolk County, New York, the U-Tube sample contained
90,000 ug/L of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) while the soil gas
samples ranged from 42,000 to 69,000 ug/L of total hydrocarbons (less light
35
-------
TABLE.8. MOISTURE RANGES OF SOIL AND BACKFILL SAMPLES
(Values in percent by weight. Moisture content
analyzed by PSI, Albuquerque, NM)
Moisture Content
Location/Station
AUSTIN, TX
AU1
AU2
AU3
AU4
At) 5
AU6
AU7
STORKS, CT
CONN1
CONN2
PROVIDENCE . RI
RI1
RI2
RI3
RI4
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NT
MY1
NY 2
NY 4
NY5
NY 6
SAB DIEGO COUNTY, CA
SD1
SD2
SD3
SD4
SDS
SD6
SD7
SDS
SD9
Tank Type Sand Gravel
Steel 11-13
Steel 3-4
FRP - 6
FRP - 5
Steel 4-13
FRP - 1-15
FRP
Steel
Steel
Steel 15
Steel 10
Steel 4
Steel 4
FRP
Steel
FRP
Steel 8
FRP 5-6
Steel
Steel 13-20
FRP
Steel 15-17
FRP - 1
FRP - 1
Steel 7-9
Steel 6-7
Steel 3-10
Native Soil Sieve Analysis Results
10 Silty sand
11
79 * Sandy gravel
Gravelly sand
Medium sand
Fine gravel
-
_ _
-
- Fine sand
Medium sand with silt
Fine sand
Nediun to fine sand
_ _
_ _
_ _
- _
3-6 Fine sand
_ _
- Fine sand with silt
- -
Fine sand with silt
-
11 Crs sand with gravel
Medium sand with silt
Medium sand with silt
Silty sand
NOTE: All Sieve Analysis results from backfill samples.
•Native Soil Sample taken from saturated zone in bottom of monitor well.
36
-------
aliphatics). Benzene and toluene were found in both the U-Tube and soil gas
samples while methane, ethylbenzene and the xylenes were not found at detec-
tion limits for either the U-Tubes or soil gas samples.
At Station 6 in Suffolk County, New York, the U-Tube sample contained
47 ug/L of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics) while the soil gas
sample contained 1,500 ug/L of total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics).
Only toluene was identified in both the U-Tube and soil gas samples.
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING
Shallo- ground water was encountered at several locations which prevented
soil gas samples from being taken at the 10-foot levels. In these cases,
samples of the ground water were taken and analyzed by the GC/FID using the
same procedures as were used for the soil gas. These results are shown in
Table 10.
37
-------
FINISHED
GRADE
OVERFILL •
PREVENTION
DEVICE WITH EXTRACTABLE
TEE TO GRADE
OBSERVATION WELLS. WATERPROOF CAPS
CAPABLE OF BEING
SEALED
EXTENSION OP
MANWAY TO GRADE
(OPTIONAL)
ALL PIPING
TO BE 4'
SCHEDULE
40PVC
4'TES
SEALED
CAP —
Source- EPA
90' SWEEP
4' DIAMETER HALF SLOTTED PIPE
WRAPPED WITH FILTER MATERIAL-1/4" PER
FOOT PITCH TOWARDS SUMP.
SLOT SIZE 060
•SPACING AND FILL TO BE IN ACCORDANCE TO
TANK MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 5. U-Tube leak detection system.
38
-------
U-Tube-141
SG2-10'
TABLE 9. U-TUBE VAPOR SAMPLES
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
(All Concentration Values in ug/L)
Total
Hydrocarbons
Methane
Icrc5'
Station 4
U-Tube-11' <24
SG1-10' <24
SG2-10' <24
SG3-10' <24
SG4-10' <24
Station 6
(less light
Benzene Toluene Cthylbenzene XyLenes aliphatics)
2.800 950 <37 <42 90,000
730 120 <37 (42 42,000
980 300 c37 (42 42,000
3,300 1,000 <37 (42 69,000
1,800 930 (37 (42 58,000
<0.02
(0.4
<0.03
<0.6
2
55
<0.04
<0.7
<0.04
<0.8
47
l.SOO
Notes:
(1) Total hydrocarbons are calculated from the average Rrs for BTEX.
(2) <24 indicates that the concentration is leas than the detection limit of 24
39
-------
TABLE 10. RYDROCABBQH COHCEKTRATIOHS PEON GROUND-MUTER SAMPLES
*-
o
Sanple
Station Hiutber
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
COHN1
CONN2
CONN 2
CONN 2
Notes
(1)
(21
MW/U 0
MW/H,0/P
HH/H 0
MM/H20/S
KH/HjO
SG4/B 0
SG5/H.O
SG2/H20
HW/HjO
HH/H20/P
MH/HjO/S
MH/H20
MW/HjO
GW-04
GH-04
GW-03
GW-OS
•
Date Depth (FT)
10/29
10/29
10/30
10/29
10/29
10/28
10/2*
10/28
10/29
10/29
10/29
10/30
10/28
11/12
11/13
11/13
11/13
7.
8.
8.
a.
9.
10.
10.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
HA
10.
6.
10.
10.
Total hydrocarbons are less light
NA refers to
Hot Analysed.
(3) Saaples noted as MH/BjO/P
(4)
(5)
(6)
Saaples noted as MM/HjO/S
GW refers to
ground-water
Values less than detection
indicate
indicate
samples .
Units
(All
Hethane
4,000
5,400
6,700
6,600
4,200
2.100
4,700
1,800
9,300
10,000
13,000
4,200
6,600
62
18
18
4,400
aliphatics ,
values inai
concentration values
Butane Xsopentane
5,700
5,000
a, 900
C.200
4.900
4,300
2,400
2.100
5,700
1,000
690
2,400
8, 500
<7
<4
<4
1.700
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA
HA
HA
<6
<4
(4
<6
in j/q/L)
Bencene
77.000.
52,000.
50,000.
71,000.
67,000.
27,000.
5,600.
5,600.
67,000.
7,300.
7,500.
4.500.
10,000.
<6.
<6.
<6.
<30.
Toluene
150,000.
130,000.
16,000.
18,000.
120,000.
(3,000.
10.000.
15,000.
160,000.
15,000.
15.000.
1,300.
25,000.
<8.
<6.
<6.
-31.
Ethyl-
benzne Xy lanes
(140. 80,000.
(140. 110,000.
<49. (79.
(140. 110.000.
U40. 51,000.
(25. 70,000.
(12. 12,000.
<49. 17,000.
(140. 93,000.
(140. 17,000.
(140. <130.
(49. <79.
(250. 21,000.
<4. <8.
<7. <10.
<8. <10.
<37. 48,000.
Total
Hydrocarbons
380
410
100
460
290
200
37
42
400
S3
36
18
86
240
,000.
,000.
.000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
,000.
(7.
<6.
<6.
,000.
as bencene in «i9/L.
kdiately
values gathered 1 .
after punpinq
5 hours after
•
puaping.
are indicated by <-
-------
SECTION 8
UST REGULATIONS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
USTs at existing facilities in Austin must have a permit to operate and
are required tc be tested or monitored for leaks on a regular basis. If tank
testing is conducted, a precision tank test, as defined in the NFPA National
Fires Codes, Section 329, is performed on each tank according to the following
schedule:
Tank Age
(as of 6/18/85) Test Frequency
0 to 5 years 0
6 to 10 years Within 12 months of 6/18/85 and then
every 2 years until over 10 years old.
over 10 years Annually, beginning within 12 months of
6/18/85.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) assumed the UST respons-
ibility from the fire department on January 14, 1987. At the present time,
the DEP has approved seven tests for tank tightness testing: Petro-tite
(Kent-Moore), Hunter, Homer, Acutest, Massney, Tanty-Tech, and Tank Auditor.
Companies who perform these tests are registered by the DEP.
Monitoring wells may be used as an alternative to precision tank testing
for leak detection of USTs. For existing facilities, leak detection monitor-
ing by surface geophysical methods such as ground penetrating radar, electro-
magnetic induction, resistivity, magnetometers, and X-ray fluorescence or by
tracer analysis may be permitted only by approval from the DEP.
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Suffolk County began regulating USTs in 1980 when a law was passed
stating that all new tank installations except underground petroleum tanks had
to be double-walled with leak detection between the walls. The law further
stated that all tanks had to be replaced with double-walled tanks by 1990.
Underground petroleum tanks could remain single-walled up to 1985 in critical
aquifer recharge areas at which time they had to be replaced with double-
walled tanks with leak detection between walls. The main aquifer recharge
area is inland and encompasses 75 percent of the island. The coastal areas do
-------
not affect the recharge of the aquifer and tanks in this area can remain
single-walled with external leak detection.
Testing of USTs is performed by county licensed testing companies. Tests
are performed every 2 years on older tanks and every 5 years on newer tanks
(since 1975). The only test recognized by the county is the Petro-Tite Tank
Tester (formerly Kent-Moore) system.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
California state law regarding the monitoring and testing of USTs allows
for implementation of these regulations to be carried out at the local level.
Counties implement the regulations through the issuance of permits to UST
owners. A city may, by ordinance, assume such responsibilities within its
boundaries.
All owners of existing USTs are required to implement a visual monitoring
or alternative monitoring system. Visual monitoring should be used as the
principal leak detection monitoring method, where feasible. When visual
monitoring is not possible, an alternative method should be implemented. The
alternative methods are:
UST Testing,
* Vapor or Other Vadose Zone Monitoring and Ground-Water Monitoring
with Soil Sampling,
• Vadose Zone Monitoring, Soil Sampling, and UST Testing,
Ground Water and Soil Testing,
• Inventory Reconciliation, UST Testing, and Pipeline Leak Detectors,
Inventory Reconciliation, UST Testing, Pipeline Leak Detectors,
Vadose Zone, or Ground-Water Monitoring and Soil Testing,
* UST Gauging and Testing, and
Interim Monitoring.
Most tank owners select the first alternative - UST testing method. In
the past, initial testing was required on all tanks within 12 months but
subsequent testing on nonleaking tanks less than 10 years old was authorized
to be done in 30 months rather than annually. Following the expiration of the
30 month period, all USTs operating under the option will require annual
testing. The specific test is not designated, but it must comply with the
NFPA National Fire Codes, Section 329.
42
-------
SECTION 9
TANK TIGHTNESS TESTING RECORDS
Tank tightness test records were available for most of the study sites.
Two commercially available systems were used to test the tanks - the Petro-
Tite Tester (formerly Kent-Moore) and the Hunter Leak Lokater. The Petro-Tite
Tester has been a recognized standard for accurate tank testing within the
industry for many years. This system works on the principle of applying a
hydraulic pressure head to the tank by an externally connected, graduated
standpipe which is filled with product to approximately four feet above ground
level. Product level in the standpipe is monitored for rise and fall and
measured amounts of product are added or removed. Readings are taken every
15 minutes for 6 hours.
The Hunter Leak Lokater measures tank leakage by sensing weight changes
in a sensor which is suspended in the liquid of the tank. Changes in weight
are transmitted to a recorder that registers these changes as leaks in or out.
The only station in this study to use the Hunter Leak Lokater was RI-4.
The manufacturers of the Petro-Tite Tank Tester and the Hunter Leak
Lokater both report that these systems can detect leaks as low as 0.05 gph in
tanks and pipes. The accuracy of these tests is currently being examined in
other EPA-related studies. Both tests do not have the capability of detecting
spills.
Some records of tank tightness tests were obtained from the oil companies
who owned the various sites. In addition, San Diego County provided test
results for several of the San Diego sites (SD-1 and SD-3 through SD-7). A
government agency provided tightness data for CONN-1. These records have
been modified to protect the confidentiality of the site locations and
operators.
Table 11 presents the Tank Tightness Test Results of the study sites.
Tanks with absolute leak rates of less than 0.05 gph are labeled TIGHT.
Tanks with leak rates greater than 0.05 gph are labeled LEAK and an
explanation of the leak and the surrounding circumstances is provided in the
accompanying footnote. Several sites had no available records or had not been
tested due to recent tank installations and are labeled NA and NT, respect-
ively, in the table.
-------
TABLE 11. TANK TIGHTNESS TEST RESULTS
Site/Station
AU-1
AU-2
AU-3
AU-4
AU-5
AU-6
AU-7
NY-1
NY-2
NY-4
NY-5
NY-6
Tank
Material
Steel
FRP
Steel
FRP
FRP
Steel
FRP
FRP
FRP
Steel
FRP
Steel
FRP
Number
of Tanks
3
1
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
6
3
3
3
Tank
Installation
Date
1961
1981
1973
1984
1981
1984
1984
1984
1982
1968
1980
1972
1980
Date of
Test
04/09/86
04/09/86
05/01/86
NT
NT1
04/15/86
NT2
NT
T
12/30/85
NT
NA
NT
Test
Results
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
NA
(continued)
FRP = Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
NA = Not Available
NT = Tank Tightness Tests Not Required
11980-1987 maintenance records indicate station had several small spills in
dispensing areas, and possibly some pipeline spills.
2Spill occurred from product line during testing. Corrective action was
taken.
44
-------
TABLE 11. (Continued)
Tank
Site/Station Material
RI-1 Steel
RI-2 Steel
RI-3 Steel
RI-4 Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
FRP
CONN-1 Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
CONN- 2 Steel
Steel
Number
of Tanks
3
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Tank
Installation
Date
1973
1976
1965
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1984
1984
1966
1978
1966
1966
1985
1940
Date of
Test
NA
09/25/87
NA
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/86
(Hunter)
01/22/87
01/21/87
01/21/87
01/21/87
01/21/87
NA
NA
Test
Results
NA
TIGHT
NA
LEAK1
TIGHT
LEAK2
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
LEAK3
TIGHT
NA4
NA
(continued)
failed tightness test on 01/22/86 due to a leak in system line. No records
on further testing.
2Failed tightness test on 01/22/86. No records on further testing.
3Failed tightness test on 01/21/87 due to leak in suction piping under pump.
Tank has been out of service since 01/87.
4H20 was discovered in super unleaded tank in 01/85. Tank was excavated and
replaced with new steel tank.
45
-------
TABLE 11. (Continued)
Site/Station
SD-1
SD-2
SD-3
SD-4
SD-5
SD-6
SD-7
SD-8
SD-9
Tank
Material
Steel
Steel
FRP
Steel
FRP
FRP
Steel
FRP
FRP
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Number
of Tanks
2
1
1
3
2
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
3
Tank
Installation
Date
1971
1971
1978
1972
1982
1982
1965
1983
1983
1972
1965
1965
1965
1967
Date of
Test
11/11/86
11/21/86
11/21/86
06/17/87
12/10/86
12/22/86
11/05/86
05/07/86
05/18/87
04/16/86
04/16/86
04/17/86
01/21/86
NA
Test
Results
TIGHT
TIGHT1
TIGHT2
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT3
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
TIGHT
NA
'Failed tightness test on 11/11/86 due to a leak in diesel vent line.
Retested on 11/21/86 and passed.
2Failed tightness test on 11/11/86 due to tank leak of -0.5 gph. Retested on
11/21/86 and passed.
3Failed tightness test on 12/10/86 due to leak in the vapor line. Retested on
12/22/86 and passed.
46
-------
There are a total of 100 USTs at the 27 gasoline stations that were
studied. Of this total, 63 tanks are fabricated from steel and were installed
between 1940 and 1984. The remaining 37 are made of fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) and were installed between 1978 and 1984.
Of the 63 steel tanks, 42 were determined tight in recent tests. Three
steel tanks, two from RI-4 and one from CONN-1, were found to be leaking. No
further records are available to indicate repair and/or subsequent testing of
these tanks. No tank tightness test records are available on the remaining 18
steel tanks.
Tank tightness tests were conducted on 12 of the FRP tanks; all tested
tight. Tests on the remaining 25 were not required by the regulating govern-
ment agency due to the relatively new age of the tanks.
Seven gas stations had histories of leaks: AU-4 and 6; RI-4; CONN-1 and
2; and SD-1 and 3. Maintenance records from AU-4 for the period of 1980 to
1987 indicate that numerous surface spills occurred from vandalized split
hoses and dispensers. Records also exist of low or slow flow which might
indicate pipeline leaks. AU-4 was removed from the database as a clean site
because of its history of high maintenance and its unusually high soil gas
concentrations. AU-6 was also removed from the database because of a known
spill that occurred from a product line break. The five other stations
remained in the database as background data because the soil gas concentra-
tions were not excessive.
47
-------
SECTION 10
DATA ANALYSIS
GCL investigated hydrocarbon vapor concentrations in the backfill of UST
in two phases: a field investigation phase and a data analysis phase.
Since no data base for soil gas information in nonleaking UST sites was
known to exist, it was necessary to conduct field investigations to establish
a baseline of hydrocarbon vapor concentrations. Data were collected from 27
gasoline service stations selected as nonleaking sites. Selection criteria
(Section 2) were used to develop a data set which included a variety of tank
ages, tank materials, stored products, and backfill materials. The USTs
selected were believed to be nonleaking, or tight. UST systems were con-
sidered to be tight if:
Tightness testing within the previous 2 years indicated the system
to be without leaks, or
In cases where test records were not available, the environmental
and maintenance personnel of the oil company had no knowledge of
contamination due to leakage at the site.
Two stations sampled (Stations 6 and 4 in Austin, Texas) were determined
to be inappropriate as nonleaking sites, and their data were not included in
the data set. Station 6 had a fresh gasoline spill from a product line punc-
ture that occurred during the field investigation. Station 4 had a history of
frequent product line and dispenser problems, according to maintenance
re«-~rds, and no test records were available.
The nonleaking site data, therefore, consisted of 279 soil gas samples
taken from 25 service stations.
Contaminated site data were obtained from TRC historical records. The
contaminated site data was selected from 60 soil gas samples taken from 9
sites having known contamination from a petroleum fuel leak or spill. These
sites were all active gasoline service stations or fueling facilities.
The strategy for data analysis was determined by the fact that no usable
data for nonleaking sites were known to exist. Therefore, analyses weire
employed which could delineate patterns in the data, if they existed, and
which could prove useful in establishing contamination thresholds.
-------
Data analysi.s was broken down into three parts:
• Analysis of total hydrocarbon concentrations (less light aliphatics
and including light aliphatics) in soil gas at nonleaking sites
with the objective of establishing a descriptive statistical
baseline.
Comparison of the nonleaking site baseline information to data from
sites where petroleum fuel contamination was known to exist. This
comparison examined the appropriateness of establishing an upper
limit for total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentra-
tions at nonleaking sites that could provide a threshold concentra-
tion value between nonleaking and contaminated sites.
Non-parametric statistical testing of each data set (nonleaking and
contaminated) in order to substantiate observed differences and
identify significant trends among total hydrocarbon vapor concentra-
tions, sample depth, location, backfill materials, tank age, and
tank material.
Analyses focused on concentrations of total hydrocarbons (less light ali-
phatics) in soil gas, as the presence of total hydrocarbons is indicative of
contamination from a petroleum leak or spill. Light aliphatics were excluded
from the reported concentrations in order to present a profile of compounds
similar to that of gasoline, and to exclude methane concentrations which may
have been present due to naturally-occurring decomposition of organic matter.
The use of total hydrocarbon concentrations in soil gas as a contamina-
tion index is consistent with current EPA ground-water and soil monitoring
proposals. An analysis of total hydrocarbon data (including light aliphatics)
is presented [Section 10, in the Empirical Distribution of Total Hydrocarbon
Concentrations (Including Light Aliphatics) of Nonleaking Sites paragraph of
this reportJ to show how these data are distributed as compared to total
hydrocarbon concentrations (less light aliphatics). This comparison may be
useful in evaluating total hydrocarbon concentrations from leak detection
devices which include light aliphatics.
Accuracy in the data analysis was essential because the results may
be used to provide direction for future leak detection methods. Towards
this goal, the soil gas data were reported in yg/L because this provided a
better approximation of the total hydrocarbon vapor concentrations than ppmv
(Section 6). Also, three GC/FIO analyses were generally performed on each
sample, and the arithmetic mean of the usable samples, as judged by the GC/FID
operator, was used in the analyses. The replicability of analytical results
were within 25 percent of the average concentration value for each sample.
49
-------
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OP TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS (LESS LIGHT
ALIPHATICS) FOR NONLEAKING SITES
An empirical distribution of the total hydrocarbon (less light alipha-
tics) vapor concentrations in soil gas surrounding nonleaking UST systems is
useful for two reasons:
It shows what concentrations can be considered as background
concentrations in a UST system, and
The distribution can be compared to similar concentration
distributions from contaminated sites.
Even at sites with no known contamination, a level of total hydrocarbon
vapor concentrations is present resulting from surface spills or small
undetected leaks of petroleum fuels. These concentrations are defined as the
total hydrocarbon background level of the soil gas at the site.
The best way to describe the distribution of total hydrocarbon concentra-
tion data is by using the relative frequency distribution. The relative fre-
quency distribution is obtained by grouping the data into concentration
classes and determining the proportion of samples in each of the classes.
This distribution for total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) concentrations
is shown in Table 12 in ug/L and in Table 13 in ppmv.
The classes in these distributions were chosen to show the overall dis-
tribution of samples, as well as the percentage of samples below 1500 ug/L
(approximately 500 ppmv). The 1500 ug/L concentration class was chosen
because proposed EPA regulations concerning leaking UST systems have consid-
ered 500 ppmv as a possible threshold value to differentiate nonleaking from
contaminated sites. The relative frequency distribution shows that 53.2 per-
cent of the samples were below 1500 ug/L. The overall distribution shows
that 93.1 percent of the samples were less than 100,000 ug/L.
There are 19 samples (6.8 percent of the total) that have average concen-
tration values greater than 100,000 ug/L. Site and sample data were examined
to explore causes for these high values. Table 14 shows the site and sample
location of the data points. The 19 samples came from 7 service stations
studied. Tightness test results showed the UST systems at four of these sta-
tions to be tight, while no test records were available for the other three.
A possible source for the high total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics)
concentrations at the seven sites is from surface spills. Interviews with the
participating oil companies revealed that underground fuel storage tanks are
occasionally overfilled by the transporter. Since there is no system for mon-
itoring these surface spills, the frequency of this event is unknown.
Another possible source for the high concentrations could be related ro
the age of the tanks. Six of the stations contained steel tanks installed
between the years 1965 and 1971. One station contained a fiberglass tank
installed in 1982. The possibility of undetected leaks could be greater in
older tanks.
50
-------
TABLE 12. DISTRIBUTION OF NONLEAKING SITE DATA FOR
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS
Concentration
Ranges (ug/L)
Not Detected
< 1,500
1,501 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 50,000
50,000 - 100,000
100,000 - 270,000
1,100,000
Number of
Samples
65
84
16
12
56
27
18
1
279
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (%)
23.3
30.1
5.7
4.3
20.1
9.7
6.4
0.4
100.0
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (%)
23.2
53.4
59.1
63.4
83.5
93.2
99.6
100.0
Mean 23,300
Median 800
Upper Quartile 33,000
TABLE 13. DISTRIBUTION OF NONLEAKING SITE DATA FOR
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS
Concentration
Ranges (ppmv)
Not Detected
< 500
501 - 1,350
1,351 - 2,700
2,701 - 13,500
13,501 - 27,000
27,001 - 72,900
> 72,900
Mean 7,200
Median 220
Upper Quartile 9,200
Number of
Samples
65
87
14
11
57
27
17
1
279
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (?)
23.3
31.2
5.0
3.9
20.4
9.7
6.1
0.4
100.0
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (%)
23.3
54.5
59.5
63.4
83.8
93.5
99.6
100.0
51
-------
TABLE 14. TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS
GREATER THAN 100,000 ug/L
Station
Austin, TX
Station 5
Suffolk County, NY
Station 1*
Station 5
San Diego, CA
Station 4
Station 7*
Station 8**
Station 9*
Tank Age
and
Material
1971-Steel
1982-
Fiberglass
1972-Steel
1965-Steel
1965-Steel
1965-Steel
1967-Steel
Petrotite
Test
Results
Tight
NR
NR
Tight
Tight
Tight
NR
Sample
Number-
Depth
SG1-2
SG1-6
SG1-10
SG2-10
SG3-2
SG4-2
SG2-2
SG2-6
SG2-8
SG4-10
SG4-2
SG1-10
SG2-2
SG2-6
SG2-10
SG2-10
SG3-10
SG4-10
SG2-6
Total Hydrocarbons
Concentration Less
Light Aliphatics
(ug/L)
150,000
110,000
1,100,000
120,000
190,000
140,000
170,000
210,000
270,000
110,000
110,000
120,000
120,000
130,000
210,000
110,000
104,000
120,000
110,000
*SG2 is located near a tank fill cap.
**Station 8 is an inactive service station.
Notations;
NR = No records available showing tank tightness results
52
-------
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OP TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS (INCLUDING LIGHT
ALIPHATICS) OP NONLEAKING SITES
It may be useful to report total hydrocarbons as including light
aliphatics for two reasons:
Methane can also occur by the natural decomposition of petroleum
fuel in soil, and
Some UST leak detection methods are based on detection equipment
that is sensitive to any hydrocarbon compound. Therefore, these
detection devices will detect the presence of methane in soil gas in
addition to other hydrocarbon compounds.
The empirical distribution of average total hydrocarbon vapor concentra-
tions (including light aliphatics) is compared to the distribution of average
total hydrocarbon vapor concentrations (less light aliphatics) in ug/L in
Table 15, and in ppmv in Table 16.
The distribution of total hydrocarbons including light aliphatics are
similar to total hydrocarbons less light aliphatics in two class ranges:
5,001 - 10,000 ug/L and 50,001 - 100,000 ug/L. However, differences exist in
the other class ranges. These differences can best be shown by summarizing
the distributions into two classes as follows:
Relative Frequency Percent
Concentration Less Light Including
Ranges (ug/L) Aliphatics Light Aliphatics
< 100,000 93.2 73.8
> 100,000 6.8 26.2
100.0 100.0
The effect of including light aliphatics in the total hydrocarbon con-
centration is to lower the percentage of samples with concentrations equal to
or less than 100,000 ug/L (or 30,000 ppmv) by 21 percent. This effect was
expected since the soil gas data showed high concentrations of light ali-
phatics at many of the sites. This was probably due to naturally-occurring
methane as well as methane which occurs from the decomposition of hydrocarbon
compounds.
COMPARISON OP TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS POR NONLEAKING SITE AND
CONTAMINATED SITE DATA SETS
The data distribution in Section 10, in the Empirical Distribution of
Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations (Less Light Aliphatics) for Nonleaking Sites
paragraph of this report, has shown that a wide range of background hydro-
carbon vapor concentrations exist in the soil gas in backfill at nonleaking
UST sites. These concentrations ranged from the lower detection limits of
0.02 ug/L to 1,100,000 ug/L for total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics).
Although much variability exists in these data, a comparison of these data to
53
-------
TABLE L5. COMPARISON OF TOTAL HYDROCARBONS INCLUDING LIGHT
ALIPHATICS AND LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS AT NONLEAKING SITES
Relative Frequency Percent
Concentration
Ranges (ug/L)
1
1
5,
10,
50,
100,
400,
,100,
,250,
<
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
000 -
000
000
5,
10,
50,
100,
400,
1,000,
000*
000
000
000
000
000
Less Light
Aliphatics
59
4
20
9
6
0
Too
.2
.3
.0
.6
.4
-
.5
-
To
Including
Light Aliphatics
48
4
11
9
21
3
0
Too
.9
.3
.0
.6
.8
.9
.5
To
*Includes non-detected values.
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF TOTAL HYDROCARBONS INCLUDING LIGHT
ALIPHATICS AND LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS AT NONLEAKING SITES
Relative Frequency Percent
Concentration
Ranges (ppmv)
< 500*
501 - 1,350
1,351 - 2,700
2,701 - 13,500
13,501 - 27,000
27,001 - 72,900
72,901 - 250,000
250,001 - 600,000
> 600,000
Less Light
Aliphatics
54.6
5.0
3.9
20.4
9.6
6.1
0.4
_
-
TooTo
Including
Light Aliphatics
45
2.1
2.5
8.9
5.0
11.1
15.0
6.4
4.0
TooTo
^Includes non-detected values.
data from known contaminated sites is required to determine if background
vapor concentrations differ from vapor concentrations at sites with known con-
tamination. If statistically significant differences exist between these data
54
-------
distributions, then the results of this comparison could be useful to UST reg-
ulators, service station owners and others who must interpret soil gas data to
determine if contamination exists at a UST site.
An evaluation of these differences could also determine the appropriate-
ness of establishing a threshold concentration for total hydrocarbons (less
light aliphatics). Statistical testing was performed (Section 10 in the Non-
parametric Statistical Testing paragraph of this report) to determine if
observed differences concluded from the descriptive statistics are significant
differences.
In order for the data sets to be comparable, the data in each set must be
collected in a similar fashion. Since the contaminated site data set was
obtained from historical records, data for this set were selectively chosen to
be consistent with the samples taken at nonleaking sites during the field
investigation.
The sampling strategy for nonleaking sites, as outlined in the Field
Methods (Section 4) was to collect samples from the backfill of the tanks and
at depths of 2, 6, and 10 feet. Although samples at contaminated sites were
usually not in backfill, data were chosen that were within approximately
50 feet of the USTs, and at 2, 6, and 10-foot depths. The method of sampling
was similar for both data sets since soil gas samples were collected by TRC
using similar procedures.
In this comparison, total hydrocarbons are reported less light ali-
phatics and in ug/L for both data sets. The total hydrocarbon (less light
aliphatics) concentrations in the nonleaking data set were calculated from
average RFs for BTEX. However, in the contaminated data set, total hydro-
carbon concentrations (less light aliphatics) were calculated from the RF
for benzene. Therefore, contaminated site data could be as much as 50 to
100 percent higher if it were reported on the basis of an average BTEX RF. A
comparison of calculation methods and their effects on total hydrocarbon
concentrations was presented in Section 6.
The sample size for the nonleaking data set was 279 samples from 25
sites. The sample size for the contaminated data set was 60 samples from 9
sites.
The descriptive statistics used to compare the nonleaking and contamin-
ated data sets were: mean, median, upper quartile, and the relative frequency
distribution percentages. These statistics are useful because they show the
distribution of each data set and these distributions can be compared even
though the sample sizes in each data set are different. The descriptive
statistics for the nonleaking sites were shown in Table 12 and those for the
contaminated sites are shown in Table 17. A comparison of these descriptive
statistics are shown in Table 18 in ug/L for total hydrocarbons (less light
aliphatics). The relative frequency distribution for the nonleaking site data
was shown in Figure 6 and that for the contaminated site data is shown in
Figure 7.
55
-------
TABLE 17.. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATED SITE DATA FOR TOTAL
HYDROCARBONS LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS
Concentration
Ranges (ug/L)
Not Detected
< 1 , 500
1,501 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 50,000
50,000 - 100,000
100,000 - 270,000
270,000 - 1,100,000
> 1,000,000
Number of
Samples
2
19
6
5
7
1
6
13
1
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (%)
3.3
31.7
10.0
8.3
10.0
1.7
10.0
21.7
1.7
100.0
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Distribution (%)
3.3
35.0
45.0
53.3
65.0
66.7
76.7
98.4
100.0
100.0
Mean 160,000
Median 9,000
Upper Quartile 22,000
TABLE 18. COMPARISON OF NONLEAKING AND CONTAMINATED SITE
DATA DISTRIBUTIONS FOR HYDROCARBONS LESS LIGHT ALIPHATICS
Concentration
Ranges (ug/L)
Relative
Frequency Percent
Contaminated
Relative
Frequency Percent
NonLeaking
Not Detected
< 1,500
1,501 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
100,001 - .270,000
270,001 - 1,100,000
2,200,000
3.3
31.7
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.7
10.0
21.6
1.7
100.0
23.2
30.0
6.0
4.3
20.0
9.6
6.4
0.4
0.0
100.0
Mean
Median
Upper Quartile
160,000
9,000
220,000
23,300
800
33,000
56
-------
NON-CONTAMINATED SITE DATA DISTRIBUTION
Ul
70
P
•n
TO
m
o
c
m
z
o
g
(A
3
0)
c
6
z
100
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
0
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS LESS METHANE
T//A V7*
\
Y^tm
1500
5000 10000 50000 100000 270000 1100000 2200000
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
Figure 6. Non-contaminated site data distribution.
-------
CONTAMINATED SITE DATA DISTRIBUTION
ni
m
m
O
c
m
z
o
g
in
BUTION
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS LESS METHANE
1500 5000 10000 50000 100000 270000 1100000 2200000
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (ug/l)
Figure 7. Contaminated site data distribution.
-------
The relative frequency distributions show much variability in both data
sets. Nine concentration ranges were selected to show this variability.
An evaluation of the means and medians gives additional information about
these data sets. The mean is an arithmetic average that is computed by
summing the concentration values and dividing by the total number of samples.
The median is defined as the middle value after the samples have been arranged
in order of magnitude (Hoel 1967).
In both data sets, the medians are much lower than the means. These
differences show that both data distributions are skewed to the right with a
majority of samples in the lower concentration ranges. The high mean values
show the effect of a few high concentration values that exist in both data
distributions.
Although similarities exist in the distribution of these data sets, some
differences can also be seen. An order of magnitude difference exists between
the mean of each data set, and between the medians of each data set. This
suggests that although similarities exist in how these data sets are skewed,
that an order of magnitude difference exists for much of the data.
The order of magnitude can best be seen in the concentration ranges above
10,000 ug/L. The relative frequency percentages from Table 18 are summarized
below for concentrations above 10,000 ug/L, or about 3000 ppmv.
Concentration Ranges Relative Frequency Percent
(Ug/L) Nonleaking Contaminated
10,000 - 100,000 29.6 13.4
100,000 - 2,200,000 6.9 33.3
36.5 4677
Most of the nonleaking samples occur in the 10,000 to 100,000 ug/L
range, while most of the contaminated samples occur above 100,000 ug/L.
The order of magnitude difference between the data sets can also be seen
by comparing the upper quartiles of each data set. The definition of upper
quartile is that 75 percent of the samples occur below the upper quartile
(Hoel 1967).
The upper quartile for the nonleaking and contaminated data sets are
33,000 ug/L and 220,000 ug/L, respectively.
The observed conclusions from these descriptive statistics is that both
data sets contain much variability and both are skewed to the right. An order
of magnitude difference exists between the data sets for concentrations above
10,000 ug/L. Statistical testing in Section 10, in the Non-Parametric Sta-
tistical Testing paragraph of this report, confirms the significance of these
differences between the data sets.
59
-------
NON-PARAMETRIC STATISTICAL TESTING
The purpose of statistical methods is to describe data quantitatively
and to draw inferences for decision-making (Kilpatrick 1987). The descriptive
statistics have been examined in the previous sections, and these described
the means, medians, upper quartiles, and relative frequency distributions for
the data sets.
In this section, statistical methods are employed to determine what
inferences can be made about the nonleaking site and contaminated site data
sets.
The statistical testing in this data analysis served two purposes:
The testing determined the significance of the observed statistical
differences between the data sets (nonleaking and contaminated)
noted in the descriptive statistics, and
The testing delineated data patterns that existed among such
parameters as location of site, depth of sample, tank material, tank
age, and backfill material.
The types of statistical tests chosen were dictated by the characteris-
tics of the data set distributions. These distributions, as described
previously, did not appear to correspond to any known statistical distribution
such as a normal distribution. Non-parametric statistical methods were used
since these methods did not require that the sample data correspond to a known
statistical distribution (Harval).
These statistical methods also introduce the element of probability as
related to the drawing of conclusions. Probability was considered important
in developing conclusions about these data sets because these data sets do not
contain complete information about the entire data set of USTs that exist.
Therefore, a probability must be attached to any conclusions made about the
data sets. A discussion of the risks associated with statistical testing,
and how these risks were controlled is given in Section 10 in the Risks
Associated with Hypothesis Testing paragraph of this report.
The Risks Associated with Hypothesis Testing
There is always the possibility of making an incorrect decision when
testing a hypothesis. This is because inferences about a particular distribu-
tion are based upon random samples from that distribution. A statistical
hypothesis is simply an assumption or statement, which may or may not be true,
concerning one or more populations.
There are two types of error or risk associated with the testing of any
hypothesis. Type 1 error is the probability of rejecting a true null hypoth-
esis, while Type 2 error is the probability of rejecting a true alternative
hypothesis. A null hypothesis indicates that no differences exist between
distributions. An alternate hypothesis indicates that differences do exist
between distributions.
60
-------
Type 1 error.is usually controlled by setting the significance level of
the test to a small value. This significance level, designated as p, numeri-
cally describes the probability that a particular hypothesis is true.
Typically this value is set at 0.05. This corresponds to a confidence level
(probability) of 95 percent. The significance level becomes a specification
of the Type 1 error rate of probability.
Type 2 error is usually controlled by taking a properly-sized sample.
This study did not consider the control of Type 2 error as a criteria for
determining sample size. However, when large discrepancies exist between the
information contained in the samples and the specification of the null hypoth-
esis with respect to the samples, then the Type 2 error will generally be
small.
When testing more than one hypothesis, the Type 1 error rate must be con-
trolled. A simple example will demonstrate what happens to the Type 1 error
rate when testing several hypotheses.
Suppose that each of 10 independent hypotheses are to be tested at a
significance level of 0.05. If the null hypothesis is true in all 10 cases,
the probability of detecting this is only 0.60. Therefore, the Type 1 error
rate is 0.40, which is totally unacceptable. One way to control the Type 1
error rate when testing several hypotheses is to test each hypothesis at a
reduced significance level. A good conservative procedure for determining the
significance level in a multiple testing situation is the Bonferroni proce-
dure. This procedure is described below.
If an overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 is to be attained, the signifi-
cance level for each hypothesis tested is computed by dividing 0.05 by the
number of hypotheses to be tested.
In the example above, the significance level of each hypothesis should
be:
0.05/10 = 0.005
Thus, if each hypothesis is tested at a Type 1 error rate of 0.005, then
an overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 will be maintained. There were 16 sta-
tistical tests performed in this study. Therefore, in order to maintain an
overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 for this study, each hypothesis was be
tested at a Type 1 error rate of 0.003.
Comparison of Nonleaking Site and Contaminated Site Data Distributions
The descriptive statistics showed some similarities in how the nonleaking
and contaminated site data were distributed. The distribution of both data
sets were skewed to the right with a majority of samples in the lower con-
centration ranges. However, an order of magnitude difference existed in the
data above 10,000 ug/L. This difference was seen by a comparison of the
means, medians, and upper quartiles of each data set. In this section of the
report, a non-parametric test is used to compare these data sets. This test
61
-------
will determine if- the distributions of these data sets are significantly
different.
The non-parametric test used for this comparison is the Two-Sample
Uilcoxon Rank Sum Procedure (Siegel 1956). This test is designed to determine
if two independent samples are from different distributions. Since the sample
values within each data set contain much variability, the question is whether
the differences observed between the data sets signify genuine differences in
distributions or whether they represent differences that can be expected
between two random samples from the same distribution.
The Vilcoxon technique tests the null hypothesis that two independent
samples come from identical distributions. This is called a null hypothesis
because it assumes that there is no difference between distributions. If the
outcome of the test rejects the null hypothesis (that is, p <0.003), then it
can be concluded that the samples came from two different distributions.
This test was computed using a computer software package called Stat-
graph. In most cases, the data used in this test represent the mean of three
GC/FID injections for each sample. The concentrations at non-detection levels
were approximated by dividing the detection limit in half.
The outcome of this test is show below.
Distribution Sample Size Average Rank Level of Significance
Nonleaking 279 160 0.00008
Contaminated 60 215
This test result shows that there is a significant difference (p <0.003)
between the distributions of the nonleaking and contaminated site data. This
test result confirms that the distributions of nonleaking and contaminated
data, as shown in Table 18, actually represent two different distributions.
Non-Parametric Testing for Data Patterns Within the Nonleaking Data
Non-parametric techniques can be used to identify patterns in the non-
leaking data set if they exist. The results of non-parametric testing can be
used to draw inferences about the data.
The purpose of this testing was to examine the effects that different
parameters had on the data. These parameters included site location sample
depth, tank material, tank age, and backfill material. The testing was
designed so that independent effects from each parameter could be seen. How-
ever, insufficient data were available to delineate the individual effect of
tank material, tank age, and backfill material.
The determination of insufficient data was made from observations about
the data at a time when further data could not be collected (i.e., the field
investigation had been completed). Two observations were made:
62
-------
All the- fiberglass tanks used pea gravel backfill and corresponded
to newer tank ages (1978 to 1984), and
All the steel tanks used sand backfill and corresponded to older
tank ages (1940 to 1984).
The data could not be separated to distinguish between tank materials,
tank age, and backfill material. In this analysis, these three parameters are
combined and referied to as either a steel tank system or a fiberglass tank
system. The presentation of test results are organized according to the
parameters of location, sample depth, and steel or fiberglass tank systems.
Test results that involve fiberglass tank systems are only shown for the
locations of Austin, Texas, Suffolk County, New York and San Diego,
California, since no fiberglass tank systems were sampled in Providence,
Rhode Island or Storrs, Connecticut.
Location—
The first parameter examined was site location. The Kruskal-Wallis One-
Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks (Siegel 1956) was chosen to test the null
hypothesis that samples from different locations come from the same
distribution.
This testing was again accomplished by the use of the Statgraph computer
software package. In order to test only for the effect of location, the data
set was broken down into subsets corresponding to sample depth and the com-
bined group of tank material, tank age, and backfill material. The above
breakdown yields six subsets as follows:
fiberglass tank systems at sample depths of 2, 6, and 10 feet, and
steel tank systems at sample depths of 2, 6, and 10 feet.
The mean concentrations for each sample were used as data. The concen-
trations below detection limits were set to positive values at the detection
limits to represent the worst case for concentrations at these sample points.
The results of these tests are shown in Table 19 for the steel tank
systems and Table 20 for the fiberglass tank systems.
The subsets consisting of steel tank systems at 2, 6, and 10 foot sample
depths show significance at p <0.003. The interpretation of these results is
that the null hypothesis, which states that these subset samples are from the
same distribution set, must be rejected. It is concluded that significant
differences do exist among the total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor
concentrations from the five locations studied for steel tank systems. The
differences were significant at all three sample depths (2, 6, and 10 feet).
The average rank is an indication of how these concentrations were
ranked. The total hydrocarbon concentrations in Austin, Texas and
San Diego, California, were greater than in Providence, Rhode Island, Suffolk
County, New York, and Storrs, Connecticut.
63
-------
The subsets consisting of fiberglass tank systems at each of the 2, 6,
and 10 foot sample depths do not show significance (p >0.003) at any of the
sample depths. The interpretation is that the null hypothesis, which states
that these subset samples are from the same distribution, is accepted. It is
concluded that no significant differences exist among the to.tal hydrocarbons
(less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations from the three locations studied
for fiberglass tank systems. This conclusion can also be seen by examining
the average ranks. The value of these ranks are similar within each sample
depth subset.
Sample Depth—
The second parameter examined was sample depth. The analysis was
designed to determine if differences existed among samples taken at different
depths. This analysis is based on the assumption that samples taken from
different depths within a hole are related, and the tests determine if data at
different sample depths have been drawn from the same distribution.
Two non-parametric tests were chosen. These were the Page L Test for
Ordered Alternatives based on Friedman Rank Sums, and the Wilcoxon Matched-
Pairs Signed-Ranks Test (Siegel 1956).
The Page L Test was chosen to test the null hypothesis that data at
different sample depths have been drawn from the same distribution. If dif-
ferences do exist, this test also reveals how these data are ordered. Specif-
ically, this test will determine if one of the following trends exist for
total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations taken from
nonleaking sites:
2' < 6' = 10'
2' = 6' < 10'
2' < 6' < 10'
2' = 10' < 6'
If test results show a level of significance ( p <0.003) then the null
hypothesis is rejected and one of these conditions exist.
In cases where these test results showed a level of significance for a
particular data subset, the Vilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was
employed to further test the following hypotheses for total hydrocarbon (less
light aliphatics) vapor concentrations at nonleaking sites:
2' < 6'
6' < 10'
2' < 10'
A separate calculation was required to test for each of thec :onditions.
64
-------
TABLE 19.- RESULTS OF KRUSKAL-WALLIS TESTS FOR LOCATIONS WITH
STEEL TANK SYSTEMS USING NONLEAKING DATA
Steel Tank
Systems
Sample Depth
= 2 Foot
= 6 Foot
= 10 Foot
TABLE 20
Fiberglass Tank
Systems
Sample Depth
= 2 Foot
= 6 Foot
= 10 Foot
Location
Austin, TX
San Diego, CA
Providence, RI
Suffolk County,
Storrs, CT
San Diego, CA
Austin, TX
Suffolk County,
Providence, RI
Storrs, CT
San Diego, CA
Austin, TX
Suffolk County,
Providence, RI
Storrs, CT
Sample Size
H
29
14
NY 8
10
28
13
NY 6
15
9
17
11
NY 5
11
3
. RESULTS OF KRUSKAL-WALLIS TESTS
FIBERGLASS TANK
Location
Suffolk County,
Austin, TX
San Diego, CA
Suffolk County,
Austin, TX
San Diego, CA
San Diego, CA
Suffolk County,
Austin, TX
Average Rank
51
49
30
20
15
48
43
28
22
17
33
27
18
14
7
FOR LOCATIONS
Significance
Level
0.000003
0.00002
0.0006
WITH
SYSTEMS USING NONLEAKING DATA
Sample Size
NY 10
9
14
NY 11
8
11
8
NY 9
5
Average Rank
21
20
12
18
14
14
13
12
9
Significance
Level
0.06
0.4
0.5
65
-------
The benefits.in using the Wilcoxon Test as a supplement to the Page L
test are not only to determine exactly how the data at different depths are
ordered, but also to utilize more data from the nonleaking data set. There
were service stations in San Diego and Austin in which shallow perched water
zones were encountered that precluded taking samples at 10 feet. Therefore,
soil gas samples were only collected at 2- and 6-foot depths. By using the
Uilcoxon Test, these data could also be utilized. The computations for both
techniques (Page L and Wilcoxon) were done by hand, under the direction of a
qualified statistician.
The results of the Page L Tests and the Uilcoxon Tests are shown in
Tables 21 and 22, respectively. These test results show variations in signif-
icance levels at individual locations in both the steel and fiberglass tank
systems. A summary of the significant test results is given below.
1) Two significant test results were shown from the Page L Test for the
overall data. The significant differences were among total hydro-
carbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations at the different
sample depths (2, 6, and 10 feet) for both steel and fiberglass tank
systems. The overall test represents data that are combined from
the different locations.
2) Significant test results were also shown from the Page L Test for
individual locations. There were significant differences among
total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations at
the different sample depths (2, 6, and 10 feet) for steel tank
systems in San Diego, California and for fiberglass tank systems in
San Diego, California and Suffolk County, New York.
3) One significant test result was shown from the Wilcoxon Test for
San Diego, California. The significant difference was shown in the
test of 2'<6'. Therefore, total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics)
concentrations are greater at 6 feet than at 2 feet for the steel
tank system in San Diego, California.
The variations in significance at the different locations could be due to
two factors: 1) the differences in the locations, such as geology, hydrology,
backfill material, etc., and 2) insufficient data to detect significant dif-
ferences using the statistical methods.
Unfortunately, the paired-sample Wilcoxon Test is not as sensitive as the
Page L Test for detecting significant differences. This is due to the nature
of the null distribution of the paired-sample Wilcoxon Test for small samples.
Thus, even though the Page L Test may have detected significant differences in
total hydrocarbon concentrations between the three sample depths, the paired-
sample Wilcoxon may not uncover the nature of these differences. Also, the
Wilcoxon could only be applied in cases where the sample size was greater than
nine samples.
66
-------
TABLE 2.1. RESULTS OF PAGE L TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN DATA
ACCORDING TO SAMPLE DEPTH
Fiberglass
Tank Systems
Location
Sample Size
Significance Level
Steel Tank
Systems
Austin, TX
Suffolk County, NY
San Diego, CA
Providence, RI
11
3
15
5
<0.05
>0.05
<0.001
>0.05
Overall
34
Austin, TX
Suffolk County, NY
San Diego, CA
Overall
6
7
8
21
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.0002
TABLE 22. RESULTS OF WILCOXON TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN DATA
ACCORDING TO SAMPLE DEPTH
Location
Test
Sample Size
Significance
Level
Steel Tank
Systems
San Diego, CA
San Diego, CA
San Diego, CA
2'<6'
24
16
11
<0.001
0.004
0.0012
67
-------
Each of the paired-sample Wilcoxon Tests were tested at individual
significance levels of 0.0015. This was derived by dividing 0.003 by two,
since two independent test cases (2'<6' and 6'<10') were performed.
Conclusions from Non-Parametric Tests Within the Nonleaking Data
The data patterns associated with site location and sample depth were
delineated by the use of Kruskal-Wallis, Page L and Wilcoxon non-parametric
statistical methods. The Kruskal-Wallis method, used to delineate patterns
according to location, revealed that significant differences in total hydro-
carbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations among the five locations
studied fc steel tank systems. The differences were significant at all three
sample de| .s (2, 6, and 10 feet). There were no significant differences
between the total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations at
the three locations studied for fiberglass tank systems.
The Page L method, used to delineate patterns according to sample depths,
revealed that significant differences exist between the total hydrocarbon
(less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations among the different sample depths
(2, 6, and 10 feet) for both steel and fiberglass tank systems.
The results of these tests indicate that data from steel tank systems at
different locations and sample depths represent significantly different data
distributions. Also, data from fiberglass tank systems from all locations,
but at different sample depths, represent significantly different
distributions.
The means, medians, lover, and upper quartiles are shown in Table 23 for
the steel tank systems and Table 24 for the fiberglass tank systems for total
hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concentrations in ug/L.
The difference in total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor concen-
trations at different sample depths can be seen in these tables. The steel
tank systems in Austin, Texas, San Diego, California, and Suffolk County,
New York show increasing concentrations with depths in the means, medians, and
lower and upper quartiles. The differences in concentrations at the different
locations can also be seen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF DATA ANALYSIS
The distribution of total hydrocarbon (less light aliphatics) vapor con-
centrations was skewed to the right with a majority of samples in the lower
concentration ranges. The relative frequency distribution showed 53.2 percent
of the samples below 1,500 ug/L and 93.1 percent below 100,000 ug/L. The
median was 800 ug/L and the mean was 23,300 ug/L. The difference between the
mean and the median is because of a few high concentration values.
The distribution of total hydrocarbon (including light aliphatics) vapoi
concentrations showed that 21 percent more samples existed above 100,000 ug/L
as compared ro total hydrocarbons (less light aliphatics). High concentra-
tions of methane were seen at many of the sites. These concentrations are
probably due to decomposition of the background hydrocarbons as well as natu-
rally occurring methane.
68
-------
TABLE 23- DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TOTAL HYDROCARBON LESS
LIGHT ALIPHATICS CONCENTRATIONS IN STEEL TANK SYSTEMS
AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND SAMPLE DEPTHS (ug/L)
Sample Depth
Austin, TX
Mean
Median
Lower Qnartile
Upper Qua r tile
2 Foot
41000
15000
570
36000
6 Foot
24000
16500
380
35000
10 Foot
120000
12000
160
36000
Providence, RI
Mean
Median
Lover Quartile
Upper Quartile
San Diego, CA
Mean
Median
Lover Quartile
Upper Quartile
Storrs, CT
Mean
Median
Lower Quartile
Upper Quartile
Suffolk County, NY
Mean
Median
Lower Quartile
Upper Quartile
1700
1
Detection Limit
0.1
30000
27000
5100
37000
270
Detection Limit
Detection Limit
1.0
5300
1.6
Detection Limit
2100
1200
0.3
Detection Limit
450
44000
41000
2400
70000
5300
0.3
Detection Limit
11.0
16000
1100
Detection Limit
39000
1300
0.1
Detection Limit
350
72000
71000
39000
104000
1.0
0.06
Detection Limit
3.0
27000
110
Detection Limit
36000
69
-------
TABLE 24. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TOTAL HYDROCARBON LESS
LIGHT ALIPHATICS CONCENTRATIONS IN FIBERGLASS TANK
SYSTEMS AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS (ug/L)
Sample Depth
Mean
Median
Lower Quartile
Upper Quartile
2 Foot
16143
28
0.1
21000
6 Foot
21689
780
2
38500
10 Foot
49133
5850
27
58000
Although much variability existed in both the nonleaking and contaminated
data, significant differences could be seen between the two distributions.
Both distributions were skewed to the right with a majority of samples in the
lower concentration ranges. However, an order of magnitude difference existed
between the mean of each data set, and between the median of each data set.
The order of magnitude was best seen in concentrations above 10,000 ug/L. Of
the nonleaking samples, 29.6 percent occurred in the range of 10,000 to
100,000 ug/L while 33.3 percent of the contaminated samples occurred in the
range above 100,000 ug/L.
70
-------
SECTION 11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are derived from the results of this study:
UST sites evaluated in this study where total hydrocarbon (less
light aliphatics) concentrations in soil vapor exceeded 100,000 ug/L
(27,000 ppmv) were generally considered contaminated, whereas sites
that exhibited vapor values less than 100,000 ug/L typically had not
had a release and were considered nonleaking. This apparent
threshold value of 100,000 ug/L (27,000 ppmv) of total hydrocarbon
(less light aliphatics) vapors may be used to help differentiate
between nonleaking and contaminated sites.
Calculation of total hydrocarbon values as BTEX based on the
average of the RFs for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-
xylene provides a more accurate representation than when calculated
as benzene.
Because of the regional variability of the data collected in this
study, any soil vapor concentration limits that are to be utilized
to differentiate between contaminated and nonleaking sites may best
be established on a regional or local basis.
Soil gas techniques can effectively be used to evaluate the backfill
areas of underground gasoline storage tanks to determine if signifi-
cant leaks exist, especially if appropriate regional or local
threshold levels are established.
Limited analysis of butane vapor concentrations indicates that
butane analysis may be useful in detecting recent leaks or spills.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Analysis of the data collected in this study revealed several areas where
additional study would be useful in developing a more complete understanding
of the occurrence and characteristics of soil gas at both clean and contam-
inated underground gasoline storage tank sites. Recommendations for further
study are:
* Develop a standardized method for reporting soil gas concentrations
in the backfill areas of USTs. This can be done by a more thorough
71
-------
analysis of soil gas in each of the three geographical areas used in
this study. The objectives would be to measure the concentrations,
develop simplified calculations to be used in reporting the concen-
ttation values and determine the appropriate assumptions and
approximations.
Determine the minimum amount of data required to decide if a site is
contaminated by a leak. The objectives would be to determine the
required number and locations of sampling points, the number of
samples above a specified threshold limit that would be acceptable,
and whether butane concentrations can be used to distinguish between
a leak and a spill.
Determine the effects of geology, backfill material, tank age, and
tank material on soil gas concentrations. A sufficient amount of
data was not collected in this study to determine the effects of
these parameters.
Examine the dispersion and decomposition of contamination by
additional sampling at Austin 6, taking advantage of the recent
documented spill.
Determine the effects of a leaking pipeline on an UST system as
compared to the effects of only a leaking tank.
72
-------
SECTION 12
REFERENCES CITED
American Petroleum Institute, Publication No. 4395, August 1985,
Laboratory Study on Solubilities of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground
Water, August 1985.
E.I.D. - Petroleum-Product Contamination of Soil and Water in New Mexico,
New Mexico Health and Environment Department, Santa Fe, NM, 1984.
EPA Methods - Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Laboratory Manual
SW 846, Washington DC, November 1986.
Harvel, Chuck, Statistician Consultant, Personal Communication.
Himmelblau, David M., Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical
Engineering, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1974.
Hoel, Paul G., Elementary Statistics, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1967.
Kilpatric, Michael, Business Statistics Using Lotus 1-2-3, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, 1987.
Radian Corporation, Personal Communication.
Siegel, Sidney, Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1956.
Tracer Research Corporation, Personal Communication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Underground Tank Leak Detection Methods:
A State-of-the-Art Review, 1986.
Wark and Warner, Air Pollution, STS Origin and Control, Harper and Row,
New York, 1981.
73
-------
APPENDIX A
Installation Date
1978
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
Total No. of FRP Tanks = 37
TANK SUMMARY
FIBERGLASS TANKS
Type of product
Diesel
Super Unleaded
Unleaded
Unleaded
Regular
Super Unleaded
Regular
Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Diesel
Regular
Diesel
Unleaded
Unleaded
Regular
Regular
Super Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Regular
Unleaded
Regular
Unleaded
Diesel
Regular
Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Regular
Diesel
Super Unleaded
Diesel
Regular
Unleaded
Super Unleaded
Kerosene
74
Capacity in gallons
12000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
6000
6000
8000
10000
8000
10000
10000
10000
12000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
12000
6000
-------
STEEL TANKS
Installation Date Type of product Capacity in gallons
1940 Regular 5000
1940 Unleaded 5000
1961 Regular 4000
1961 Unleaded 4000
1961 Super Unleaded 6000
1965 Not Known 6000
1965 Not Known 6000
1965 Unleaded 4000
1965 Unleaded 4000
1965 Regular 8000
1965 Unleaded 10000
1965 Not Known 6000
1965 Unleaded 6000
1965 Super Unleaded 6000
1965 Unleaded 6000
1965 Regular 6000
1965 Super Unleaded 4000
1965 Regular 4000
1965 Super Unleaded 4000
1965 Super Unleaded 4000
1965 Not Known 6000
1966 Super Unleaded 4000
1966 Regular 4000
1966 Regular 5000
1966 Unleaded 1500
1966 Super Unleaded 4000
1966 Unleaded 4000
1966 Unleaded 4000
1966 Regular 5000
1967 Unleaded 10000
1967 Regular 8000
1967 Super Unleaded 6000
1968 Unleaded 4000
1968 Diesel 4000
1968 Regular 4000
1968 Super Unleaded 4000
1968 Super Unleaded 4000
1968 Unleaded 4000
1971 Super Unleaded 10000
1971 Regular 10000
1971 Unleaded 10000
1972 Unleaded 8000
1972 Regular 8000
1972 Unleaded 8000
1972 Super Unleaded 6000
1972 Regular 8000
(continued)
75
-------
STEEL TANKS (Continued)
Installation Date Type of product Capacity in gallons
1972 Super Unleaded 8000
1972 Super Unleaded 8000
1973 Super Unleaded 8000
1973 Regular 8000
1973 Unleaded 8000
1973 Regular 8000
1973 Unleaded 8000
1973 Super Unleaded 8000
1976 Unleaded 8000
1976 Regular 8000
1976 Super Unleaded 8000
1978 Diesel 2000
1984 Unleaded 5000
1984 Unleaded 8000
1984 Regular 8000
1984 Super Unleaded 8000
1985 Super Unleaded 5000
Total No. of Steel Tanks = 63
76
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF FIELD NOTES AND CONDITIONS
NOTE: 999 = Not Analyzed
77
-------
00
Sta-
tion
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
.,U2
AU2
AU3
AU3
Saapl*
No.
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-02
SG5-06
SGS-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-OB
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-02
SG5-06
SGS-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
Sanpl*
Depth
(ft)
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
8.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
VacuuB
(in. Hg)
3.
13.
6.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
7.
2.
2.
2.
2.
18.
9.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
7.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
Evacuation Hydro-
Duration carbon
(aec.) Odor
30.
120.
90.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
90.
30.
30.
60.
30.
120.
120.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
60.
30.
60.
30.
40.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
None
•on*
Ron*
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Bon*
Ron*
•on*
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
None
Slight
T**p.
(F)
78.
83.
83.
79.
81.
80.
84.
84.
84.
88.
89.
89.
87.
87.
86.
69.
69.
70.
73.
74.
73.
78.
78.
80.
84.
84.
85.
85.
85.
85.
6 "7.
67.
BaroMtnc
Pressure Soil
(in. Hg) Type
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.56
29.56
29.56
29.53
29.53
29.53
29.49
29.49
29.49
29.52
29.52
29.52
29.54
29.54
29.54
29.49
29.49
29.49
29.48
29.48
29.48
29.41
29.41
29.41
29.62
29.62
Hativ*
Hativ*
Hativ*
Hativ*
Hativ*
Hativ*
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Hativ*
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Fill
Material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Probe Us* of
Penetration Bauer
Soft
Hard
Hard
Soft
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Soft
soft
Soft
soft
Sort
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Ho
Yes
Yes
Ho
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
Ho
Yes
Ho
No
Ho
Ho
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
Sta-
tion
AUS
AUJ
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU4
AU4
AU4
AU4
AU4
AU4
AU4
AU4
AUS
AU5
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AU6
Saaple
No.
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SGS-06
SGS-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-VO
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-LO
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-10
SOS- I 5
SG1-02
Sanple
Depth
(ft)
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
10.
l.S
2.
Evacuation Hydro-
Vacuiw Duration carbon
(in. Hg) (sac.) odor
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
999.
2.
2.
0.
2.
2.
3.
2.
IS.
2.
2.
IS.
2.
999.
2.
999.
2.
4.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
30.
as.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
30.
30.
0.
30.
30.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
30.
30.
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Slight
Strong
Slight
Strong
Strong
Slight
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Mono
None
dona
Strong
Strong
Slight
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Not
Strong
Strong
Tamp.
(P)
67.
72.
72.
78.
84.
84.
82.
85.
as.
85.
as.
as.
62.
63.
63.
71.
72.
72.
72.
72.
85.
as.
90.
999.
999.
999.
90.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
Baron* trie
Pressure Soil
(in. HgJ Type
29.62
29.63
29.63
29.63
29.59
29.59
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29.57
29. 55
29.55
29.55
29.56
29.56
29.56
29.56
29.56
29.89
29.89
29.84
999.
999.
999.
29.83
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Pill
Material
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Probe Use of
Penetration Hamaer
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Not
Soft
Not
Soft
Sort
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ko
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
No
Ko
Ho
No
No
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
No
Not
Ho
Ho
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
10.
A
6.
A
10.
A
A
(Continued)
-------
Sta-
tion
AU6
AU6
A06
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
§ AU6
AU6
AU6
AU7
All!
Aui
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONH1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
Sanple
Ho.
SC1-06
SG2-02
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-OC
SG4-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-06
SGS-02
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
5G2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SGI -06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
Sanple
Depth
(ft)
6.
2.
2.
6.
6.
2.
2.
6.
6.
2.
2.
6.
6.
2.
2.
6.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
«.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
Vacuua
(in. Hg)
4.
4.
2.
1.
2.
a.
13.
8.
3.
4.
3.
2.
3.
3.
5.
3.
S.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
4.
2.
3.
13.
19.
13.
7.
17.
20.
18.
Evacuation Hydro-
Duration carbon
( sec . ) Odor
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
45.
60.
45.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
90.
135.
90.
90.
ISO.
240.
120.
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Slight
Slight
Strong
Strong
St rong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Bono
HOD*
Slight
Strong
Slight
Strong
Slight
Strong
•one
•ono
Hone
•on*
•on*
•on*
Slight
Tesip.
-------
Staple Evacuation Hydro-
Baroaetnc
00
sta-
tion
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONH1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN2
CONN2
COHN2
COKN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN 2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN 2
CONN 2
CONN 2
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
HY1
RY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
saaple
No.
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-02
SGS-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-09
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SGS-02
SGS-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-03
SG4-06
Depth
(ft)
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
9.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
8.
2.
6.
10.
3.
6.
vacuua
(in. Hg)
18.
20.
12.
9.
11.
12.
15.
3.
3.
1.
2.
19.
3.
2.
17.
20.
14.
14.
2.
7.
20.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
3.
3.
Duration
(sec.)
120.
60.
75.
45.
30.
65.
75.
30.
20.
30.
30.
110.
30.
20.
90.
110.
90.
75.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
60.
60.
60.
60.
45.
60.
60.
carbon
Odor
Slight
•on*
•on*
•on*
•on*
None
Ron*
Ron*
Ron*
Ron*
Ron*
•on*
Ron*
Nan*
Ron*
Bon*
Bon*
Ron*
Ron*
Strong
Strong
Hot
Hot
Not
Not
Hot
Not
Hot
Rot
Hot
Hat
Hot
Teap.
(P)
999.
41.
41.
40.
37.
36.
36.
36.
53.
51.
55.
61.
62.
53.
51.
51.
47.
46.
46.
48.
48.
69.
70.
72.
73.
73.
74.
75.
74.
75.
67.
67.
Pressure
(in. Hg)
999.
29.65
29.72
29.74
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.88
29.89
29.90
29.90
29.90
29.90
29.89
29.89
29.94
29.95
29.91
29.94
29.91
29.95
29.95
29.95
29.95
29.94
29.89
29.88
29.88
29.87
29.86
29.86
Soil
Type
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Native
Native
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Not
Not
Hot
Not
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Rot
Not
Pill
Material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
L^.id
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Probe
Penetration
Hard
Hard
Soft
Hediun
Hard
Nediua
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Soft
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Use of
Hauer
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yea
No
No
Yes
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
10.
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
Sample Evacuation Hydro-
BaroMtric
00
aia- aaopie oeptn vacuiw Duration carbon Teip. Pressure Soil
tion
HY1
NY2
NY 2
NY2
NY2
HV2
till
NY 2
NY 2
NY2
NY 2
NY 2
NY4
NY 4
NY4
NY 4
NY4,
NY4
NY 4
NY 4
NY 4
NY 4
NY 4
NY 4
NYS
NYS
NYS
NYS
NYS
NYS
NYS
No.
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG4-07
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-09
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-OS
(ft)
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.'
10.
2.
2.
7.
10.
2.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
9.
2.
6.
2.
5.
(in. Hg)
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
10.
3.
20.
(sec.)
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
90.
60.
60.
60
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
180.
Odor
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Rot
Hot
Hot
Rot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
(P)
67.
61.
61.
61.
64.
64.
64.
66.
66.
66.
67.
68.
62.
63.
64.
66.
66.
67.
67.
67.
67.
68.
67.
67.
73.
71.
71.
70.
60.
57.
57.
(in. Hg)
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.88
29.88
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.87
29.78
29.79
29.79
29.79
29.79
29.78
29.78
29.79
29.78
29.78
29.77
29.77
29.70
29.71
29.71
29.71
29.71
29.87
29.87
Type
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Not
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Not
Not
Rot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Not
Not
Hot
Pill
Material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Hot
Hot
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Probe
Penetration
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Use of
Bauer
Ho
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
Barometric
Sta-
tion
HY5
HY5
SYS
HY6
HY6
HY6
NY6
HY6
NY6
NY 6
RI1
mi
RI1
2 »"
RIL
RI1
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
HI 2
RI2
«I2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
Saapla
No.
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SOI -02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-09
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
Depth
p.
(r>
59.
59.
59.
60.
61.
61.
61.
60.
60.
59.
40.
40.
41.
41.
41.
43.
54.
57.
53.
41.
43.
43.
41.
41.
41.
41.
41.
40.
60.
65.
58.
57.
Pressure
(in. Hq)
29.65
29.85
29.85
29.87
29.88
29.88
29.88
29.88
29.92
29.94
29.32
29.39
29.33
29.35
29.32
29.37
29.72
29.72
29.72
29.47
29.47
29.47
29.47
29.45
29.39
29. Jd
29.39
29.39
29.49
29.49
29.49
29.49
Soil
Type
Not
Not
Rot
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Pill
Material
Hot
Hot
Hot
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Rot
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Hot
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Hot
Hot
Not
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Probe
Penetration
Hard
Hard
Soft
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Rot
Nod/Hard
Hard
Hard
Soft
Hod
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Nod
Soft
Hod
Hard
Hard
Not
Soft
SoftNHod
Nod\Kard
Hod
Nod
Use of
Kauer
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yes
Yas
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Depth to
Hater (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
00
Sta-
tion
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
HI 4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI-1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SOI
SOI
SD1
SD1
SD1
SOI
SOI
SOI
SD1
SD2
Sanpl*
No.
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-06
SG1-02
Sanpl*
D*pth
(ft)
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
6.
2.
VacuiM
(in. Hg)
3.
3.
«.
6.
6.
4.
3.
2.
3.
3.
9.
9.
6.
3.
4.
9.
3.
4.
9.
4.
20.
7.
2.
999.
2.
2.
999.
9.
9.
999.
2.
2.
Evacuation Hydro-
Duration carbon
(s*c.) odor
30.
30.
30.
45.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
90.
30.
70.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
•on*
•on*
•on*
•on*
•on*
•on*
•on*
Ron*
Nod
Nod
•on*
Hot
None
None
None
Nona
Nod-Stng
Strong
Hon*
Ron*
Ron*
Ron*
Ron*
None
Hon*
Ron*
Ron*
None
None
Nona
Strong
None
T*«p.
(P)
57.
58.
57.
55.
49.
48.
46.
58.
60.
60.
S3.
50.
50.
54.
54.
55.
61.
62.
79.
77.
77.
76.
75.
75.
72.
73.
73.
72.
72.
72.
73.
73.
Baronetric
Pressure Soil
(in. Hg) Type
29.50
29.51
29.51
29.50
29.52
29.54
29.55
29.82
29.83
29.80
29.80
29.80
29.80
29.79
29.78
29.78
29.72
29.73
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.97
29.00
Backfill
Nativ*
Backfill
Backfill
Hativ*
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Hativ*
Hativ*
Nativ*
Nativ*
Hativ*
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Pill Probe
Naterial Penetration
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Nod
NodXHard
Hod
Nod
Hod
Hard
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Nod
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Us* of
Banner
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
(Continued)
-------
o>
Sta-
tion
SD2
SD2
SD2
S02
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
S02
SD2
S02
SD2
503
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SDJ
303
SOI
SDJ
SD3
SD3
SDJ
SD3
503
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
Sanpla
No.
SG1-06
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG1-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SGI- 10
SG4-02
SGI -06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SGS-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SGl-10
SGi-02
SG2-06
Sanple
Depth
(ft)
6.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10. .
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
Evacuation Hydro-
Vacuu* Duration carbon
(in. Kg) (sac.) odor
4.
2.
999.
2.
2.
999.
2.
2.
999.
2.
2.
999.
8.
999.
999.
2.
2.
999.
2.
2.
999.
2.
999.
999.
7.
2.
999.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
75.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
45.
30.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Rona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
Strong
Strong
Tamp.
(P)
77.
78.
79.
78.
80.
81.
80.
79.
79.
80.
78.
78.
999.
999.
999.
74.
74.
74.
77.
77.
77.
79.
79.
79.
79.
79.
79.
75.
75.
75.
75.
75.
Baronatric
Prassura Soil
(in. Hg) Type
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
30.23
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Nativa
Nativa
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Nativa
Nativa
Nativa
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
fill
Material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Crushed
Not
Not
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Clays
clays
Clays
Gravel
Gravel
Graval
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Proba
Panatration
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Hard
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Hard
Hard
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Use of
Bauer
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
No
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
Ves
yes
No
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
No
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
10.
A
A
K
A
A
10.
A
A
10s
A
A
A
A
A
10.
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
00
Sta-
tion
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SDS
SDS
SOS
SDS
SOS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
S06
S06
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
Sample
HO.
SC2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG-l-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SGI -06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-LO
SG3-02
SGJ-06
SG3-10
SG-t-02
SG-l-06
SGI -08
Saiple
Depth
(ft)
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
6.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
fi.
10.
2.
6.
«.
VacUUB
(in. Hg)
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
10.
10.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
6.
2.
Evacuation Hydro-
Duration carbon
(sec.) odor
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
180.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
35.
60.
30.
30.
30.
30.
90.
60.
30.
10.
60.
30.
30.
30.
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Node rat*
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Slight
Slight
Mode rat*
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
•one
Slight
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Teap.
IF)
75.
76.
76.
76.
76.
76.
76.
76.
79.
79.
so.
80.
80.
80.
80.
80.
80.
80.
83.
81.
72.
72.
77.
78.
78.
76.
80.
80.
80.
76.
74.
74.
Barometric
Pressure Soil
lin. Hg) Typo
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
999.
29.90
29.90
29.90
29.91
29.91
29.91
29.92
29.92
29.92
29.92
29.92
29.92
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
Backfill
rui
Material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Grav*l
Gravel
Probe Use of
Penetration Haoaar
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
HO
Bo
Bo
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Xes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Depth to
Water (ft)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Continued)
-------
Barometric
00
sta-
tion
506
SD6
SD6
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
507
SD7
507
507
SD7
507
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
508
SD8
SD8
SOB
SD8
SOB
SD8
SOS
SDB
SD8
SD8
SD8
509
509
Saaple
No.
SGS-02
SGS-06
SGS-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SGl-Ofi
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-02
SGS-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
Depth
Iftl
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
vacuum
da. Hg)
13.
999.
999.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
7.
0.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
Duration
(sec.)
95.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
30.
45.
30.
60.
30.
60.
60.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
carbon
Odor
None
Not
Rot
Slight
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
None
Slight
-------
Sta-
tion
SD9
SD9
509
809
SD9
SD9
SD9
509
S09
SD9
509
509
SO9
Sasiple
No.
SG1-10
SG2-02
SC2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGS-02
SG5-06
SGS-10
Sanple
Depth
(ft)
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
2.
6.
10.
Evacuation Hydro-
Vacuiw Duration carbon
(in. Hg> (sec.) Odor
999.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
12.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
60.
30.
30.
60.
Hot
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Slight
Slight
Strong
Slight
Slight
Slight
Te«p.
-------
APPENDIX C
SOIL GAS DATA AND SITE HAPS
(NOTE: Methane as it appears in Appendix C represents light aliphatlcs. For
an explanation, refer to Section 4, Analytical Procedures of the text.)
89
-------
SOIL CAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Austin
Station 1
Sample
301-02
SG1A-06
SG1A-09
SG2-02
502-06
502-10
503-02
SO 3-06
S03-10
S04-02
504-06
SO4-10
505-02
509-06
509-10
Sample
301-02
S01A-06
SO1A-09
502-02
502-06
S02-10
303-02
503-06
503-10
504-02
S04-06
504-10
309-02
503-06
505-10
Methane
ci-cs
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(j/O/L)
(Data Arranged by D«pth with Averages)
Austin
Station 1
Sample
Nathan*
C1-C5
(as nvthana)
Total
Hydrocarbons
-------
CONCRETE PADO SG-2 SG-1
/EVENTS
t^PEA GRAVEL
(32o)
II UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1961
COVER DEPTH 4'-2"
TANK BOTTOM 9'-8"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 4000 GAL.
SIZE s'-
12 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1961
COVER DEPTH 2'-10"
TANK BOTTOM 9'-10"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 4000 GAL.
SIZE s'-
II SUPER
INSTALLED 1961
COVER DEPTH 4'-2"
TANK BOTTOM 9'-8"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE B'-(
14 DIESEL
INSTALLED 1981
COVER DEPTH 4'-2"
TANK BOTTOM 10'-9"
TANK TYPE FIBERGLASS
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 81-0"x32'-0"
Austin Station 1
92
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
nun
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Austin
Station 2
(vg/L)
Sample
301-02
SO1-06
301-10
S02-02
302-06
SO2-08
S03-02
SG3-06
503-10
504-02
504-06
S04-10
S05-02
SG5-06
305-10
Sample
SG1-02
501-06
301-10
S02-02
SO2-06
302-08
303-02
303-06
503-10
504-02
304-06
504-10
505-02
505-06
S05-10
Methane
C1~C5
(as Methane)
110000.00
150000.00
120000.00
20000.00
56000.00
45000.00
420.00
71000.00
130000.00
120000.00
200000.00
200000.00
180000.00
180000.00
210000.00
Methane
Cl"C3
(as Methane)
167898
228952
183308
30737
86226
69159
653
110329
202762
188617
314361
314939
284120
284120
331474
Benzene
5200.00
8600.00
8200.00
1100.00
3600.00
2900.00
26.00
6600.00
11000.00
6600.00
12000.00
12000.00
10000.00
12000.00
16000.00
Bensene
1628
2693
2572
347
1137
914
8
2104
3519
2128
3869
3876
3238
3883
5181
Toluene
3900.00
6300.00
7200.00
990.00
2500.00
2100.00
24.00
4800.00
7200.00
4700.00
9900.00
8600.00
6300.00
9400.00
17000.00
( ppnv )
Toluene
1035
1672
1915
265
669
561
6
1297
1953
1285
2706
2355
1729
2580
4667
Ethylbeneen*
<80.00
<80.00
<80.00
(40.00
<40.00
<40.00
<2.00
(80.00
160.00
<40.00
<80.00
<160.00
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Depth with Averages)
Austin
Station 2
Sanpla
Depth - 02 Peet
SG1-02
502-02
503-02
504-02
505-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Peet
501-06
502-06
503-06
S04-06
505-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Peet
301A-09
502-08
503-10
504-10
505-10
Methane
VC5
(as Methane)
110000.00
20000.00
420.00
120000.00
180000.00
86084.00
150000.00
96000.00
71000.00
200000.00
180000.00
131400.00
120000.00
49000.00
130000.00
200000.00
210000.00
Bensene
9200.00
1100.00
26.00
6600.00
10000.00
4585.20
8600.00
3600.00
6600.00
12000.00
12000.00
8560.00
8200.00
2900.00
11000.00
12000.00
16000.00
Toluene
3900.00
990.00
24.00
4700.00
6300.00
3182.80
6300.00
2500.00
4800.00
9900.00
9400.00
6580.00
7200.00
2100.00
7200.00
8600.00
17000.00
Ethylbenzene
<80.00
<40.00
<2.00
<40.00
<80.00
<24.20
<80.00
<40.00
<80.00
<80.00
<80.00
36.00
<80.00
<40.00
160.00
<160.00
<160.00
Xylanes
3100.00
300.00
<2.00
2000.00
9500.00
2980.20
9400.00
1800.00
8500.00
8700.00
14000.00
8480.00
10000.00
1700.00
9200.00
6400.00
21000.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
15000.00
3200.00
70.00
20000.00
33000.00
14254.00
28000.00
11000.00
22000.00
39000.00
42000.00
28400.00
30000.00
9000.00
34000.00
36000.00
63000.00
Averages
141000.00
10020.00
8420.00
76.00
9660.00
34400.00
Concentration at detection Units were approximated by dividing the detection Unit by 2.
The approxlnations were in computing the averages.
-------
SG-1-
(24333)
CONCRETE PAD /7 ™* SAND BACKFILL ^
ffi^iWffi$K-&
llp^^^'1
1
« I
i i
I
1
0 ,
1
£$&' v52'31 "*W$& '.•:
•
'•• \ :i
•1 i
J ;
; o ;
''.'• 9 i
-.£ 0 ;^:#^;p^^v:.
• ^:^:i@-jS667)S:^
i a.
\ ill
] (H*
1 0 li
Li!
11 REGULAR #2 UNLEADED 13 SUPER UNLEADED
-SG-5
(46000)
INSTALLED 1973 INSTALLED 1973 INSTALLED 1973
COVER DEPTH 2'-4" COVER DEPTH 2'-0" COVER DEPTH V-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 10'-4" BOTTOM OF TANK 10 '-0" BOTTOM OF TANK 9 '-10"
TANK TYPE STEEL TANK TYPE STEEL TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 GAL. CAP. 8000 GAL. CAP. 8000 GAL.
SIZE 81-0"x2T-10" SIZE 8'-0"x2T-10" SIZE 8'-0"x21 '-10"
NOT TO SCALE
Austin Station 2
95
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Austin
Station 3
t«/g/L)
sample
SG1-02
301-06
361-10
502-02
362-06
502-10
303-02
503-06
503-10
504-02
564-06
S04-10
SG5-02
305-06
305-10
Sample
501-02
501-06
501-10
502-02
502-06
502-10
563-02
503-06
SO3-10
304-02
504-06
364-10
305-02
505-06
565-10
Methane
C1~C5
(as Methane)
0.08
24.00
37000.00
0.50
24.00
60000.00
2.00
25000.00
120000.00
0.10
32.00
110000.00
0.60
5.00
35000.00
Methane
C1-CS
(aa Methane)
0
36
56071
1
37
92795
3
39149
187911
0
SO
172690
1
8
54947
Bencene
<0.04
<0.04
1200.00
<0.04
0.70
1900.00
<0.04
800.00
3300.00
<0.04
1.00
3000.00
<0.04
0.06
1900.00
Bencene
0
0
37)
0
0
603
0
257
1060
0
0
966
0
0
612
Toluene
<0.04
0.02
370.00
<0.04
1.00
510.00
0.09
250.00
1100.00
<0.04
1.00
840.00
<0.04
0.30
1700.00
(ppmv)
Toluene
0
0
98
0
0
137
0
68
300
0
0
229
0
0
464
Ethylbenzene
<0.06
<0.06
<31.00
<0.06
<0.06
<63.00
<0.06
<31.00
(63.00
<0.06
<0.06
01.00
<0.06
<0.06
01.00
Ethylbencene
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
4
7
0
0
4
0
0
4
Xylenea
0.20
0.10
34.00
0.10
0.03
7.97
<56.00
<28.00
<5S.OO
<0.06
0.20
<28.00
0.20
<0.06
410.00
Xylenea
0
0
8
Q
0
2
7
3
7
0
0
3
0
0
97
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
0. 10
0. 50
2100.00
0 . 10
3.00
3000.00
0.10
1300.00
5700.00
<0.06
3.00
5100.00
0. 10
1 .00
4700.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
0
0
625
0
1
916
0
400
1756
0
1
1585
0
0
1374
Concentrations in j/o,/L represent the mean values of three GC/FID analyses per sample
Concentrations at or below detection Units are noted with a less than symbol.
Concentrations in ppmv are calculated as discussed in Section 6. and rounded to the nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
96
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Depth with Averages)
Austin
Station 3
Sample
Methane
CX-C5
(as Methane)
Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene
Xylenea
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatic*)
Depth - 02 Feet
501-02
S02-02
SO3-02
SO4-02
305-02
Averages
Depth - OS Feet
S01-OS
502-06
503-06
SG4-06
505-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Feet
S01-10
S02-10
503-10
504-10
509-10
Averages
O.OB
0.50
2.00
0.10
0.60
0.66
24.00
24.00
25000.00
32.00
5.00
5017.00
37000.00
60000.00
120000.00
110000.00
35000.00
72400.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
tO.04
<0.04
0.02
(0.04
0.70
800.00
1.00
0.06
160.36
1200.00
1900.00
3300.00
3000.00
1900.00
2260.00
<0.04
<0.04
0.09
<0.04
<0.04
0.03
0.20
1.00
250.00
1.00
0.30
50.50
370.00
510.00
1100.00
640.00
1700.00
904.00
<0.0«
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
0.03
<0.06
<0.0«
<31.00
<0.06
<0.06
3.12
<31.00
<63.00
<63.00
01
00
00
21.90
0.20
0.10
-------
PEA GRAVEL
M ]• 5G-3 *..*;•.:
J2333K::--::!
~> ' ..'' K--.--1
lcSG-4 .**.• .*'.!/\*'*\I*• •,!•<
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 2'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 10'-10"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE S'-O'^Z'-O"
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 2'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 10'-10"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE S'-
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 2'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 10'-10"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE B'-V'*32'-0"
14 SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 2'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 10'-10"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 12.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x36'-0"
I
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Austin Station 3
98
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arrange! by Sanple Number)
Austin
Station 4
Sanple
SG1-02
561-06
SQ2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
303-06
304-02
S04-06
305-02
305-06
Methane
C1-C5
{as Methane)
540000.00
870000.00
500000.00
520000.00
600000.40
780000.00
630000.00
580000.00
470000.00
630000.00
Benzene
43000.00
S8000.00
41000.00
41000.00
64000.00
97000.00
7)000.00
7(000.00
37000.00
51000.00
Toluene
25000.00
68000.00
26000.00
50000.00
39000.00
85000.00
27000.00
63000.00
16000.00
35000.00
Ethylbensene
(680.00
(680.00
(680.00
(640.00
< 680. 00
(680.00
(680.00
(680.00
(34.00
<6BO.OO
Xylenes
26000.00
62000.00
21000.00
51000.00
41000.00
83000.00
52000.00
58000.00
12000.00
47000.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
120000.00
220000.00
110000.00
160000.00
180000.00
320000.00
200000.00
240000.00
87000.00
160000.00
Saaplo
Methane
VC5
(aa Methane)
Benzene
(ppnv)
Toluene Ethylbeneane
Xylan*a
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass light
allphaticsl
901-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
5G4-02
9G4-96
305-02
SOS-06
812482
1311S09
765035
797126
919761
1195689
965749
889102
720479
965749
13271
17935
12868
12892
2012S
30501
24S27
J4527
11635
16037
6542
17S28
6918
13330
10397
22661
7198
16796
4266
9331
77
77
79
79
79
79
79
79
4
79
590S
14108
4850
11801
9487
19205
12032
13420
2777
10875
32811
58344
J0775
42829
49991
87370
55721
66004
24997
43584
Concant rat Ions In */o,/L raprasant th« naan values of thraa GC/FID analyses par sanpla.
Cencantiatlona at or balow dttactlon limits ara notad with a lasa than syabol.
Concantrat Ions in ppav ara ealculatad as discussed in Section 6, and rounded to the nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection Holts were approxinated by dividing the detection
lioit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
99
-------
PEAGRAVEL
• **#** •**•"* •**•**•**•**•**•** I •'*'•• •••••• •"*••*»•*»•*••*••*•»*•• *••*•• * • •
• » • •»• • • • • - • * . • • -. • • « • •.• • -.••_••_••_• •.• • _ • •_**•_•*• •*• • *•_•*• »* • • ••_•**_•• «*•_!
•• . •• I •• t ••
:•..•:'..•:•..•:;
?••?••*••*
••B •"•.*••_ • "•
.. ; •••••! ••
• * * • * * • * *• *
;v.'sGr'3'.»:'
i • J •• 1 •* * *•
•* •••••••••
*«**«"«**«*»"\*i
•**•••*•»•*••«
• * * • * * • * * •
»• £ •• .J •» J ••
•* *» * *•* *•*
"•**•* •* *•*•**•*•
>•*••*••*•»
• *'•'•••••
•-• • * • • • • •
l» J •••»•* •»
*••**•-• *«.**1
• • 2 ••!••• ••
•••*•••••"•-«
".**.».••.*/•.••
'• J •• J *» J ••
"•.•"•.»*•,**<
• * • • * • • * • i
•.**.•.•".«.••.•.
»» 2 •*•••• ••
I •• 2 •• J •• S
•».••». ••«.••!
•"•.'ssu'"*":'
••• ••• ••• '
>•!••;•«; «•
.• ... *.* *«*
2 •• 2 •« 2 •• «
"•••"I"«*"I*?"!
***•**.***
;«•;««;..;>•;».;
••••••••••»•••»
D
©
O
11
'.'•'.••'.
• • * i
• •
• " •"*•
r;*./
•*%*•
• ••""•
•**•"•
I J ••
•* "• * •
1 * ••
I**IO
•* *••
»""»*J
» 2 **
•" *
• *•*"•
*• ***
• * • •
•*".*J
» J •*
*••***
• m •**
•*"•*•
• c ••
*•• I**"
• • T ••*••- »•
•••..•••..••*./••
D
0
o
12
•*. • •• .."• • •* • **.• •• • •* • ••!••!•• 2 •••••• ••
/•'•:•
*..*:
• * • i
* • • *
*!•!"
".".*
1 •» *
* . . *
*. ••"
*."*."
* • *
• ''\:
• i •
i _ _ •
*•••*
» * «
•• * •
• I**!"
".»,*
• _ • *
*»••*
>•***.
»*• .
'*.*.*
• •• i
•••
:•••'.
• ** <
» ; .
*."•••"•••"••."«•.**.••".•.**.• •"•••"•'
D
O
O
13
" I "••" !"••"! "««" !*.•"; "•«"
. .
•• .
••• '
".".•*
.•;.:
*. • .* *,
••i
*!••**
»**• *
. 2 ••
• ••
•• r
«..
*.•."
_ •
•":•"•
l***«'
* • *•
'>':•.'•
* * «.
i *..*•
• i ••
:'»2
•"•*••
• * **
I •• «
•***«.
> ,**(,•
• * •
:*.« :
a
o
o
14
"•• I '••"!"••"*"••""
.•„•• ••".•••'
••*!.•• I
• • ^
* * • ** *
* * *•**•*
".•• .. ;
;: SG-i
.«..."..
I*****
• • . • • .<
** • •• •
*!*• •*!*••
_ * • * •
•••"•.•*•
'«•.**.".*'
.••.i.". i
!•••••
* * . . *
• •••••
*•".*»*•*.'.
**•.***•
T; ".*•*•".*
•• i •• !
••••••
'•••""•"•""
•• * •• '
» "••*•)
• • f •• '.
•/*••/"•••*%•/%•/"•••**••/*•••"*• 0"*«*I*0!""«"I**«*I**«*I**I"«"*I"!*C»I*"!«*"I*I**I«I**I^ ? *•••*'
lp •**•**•**•**•"*•**•**••*•**«**•**•••• A ^P«9 •• 2 ••«•• 2 **•**•**•**•**•**•** i
1 «• I •• J «• ; •• j »•*•.*.. 2 •* t ». £ .. j .. • •• 2 •• i •« , •» 2 •• • •• • •• ! ••!••{•• 2 ••.!.••.*.••.!.•'
II DIESEL
INSTALLED 1981
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-0"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x32'-0"
n REGULAR
INSTALLED 1981
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-0"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x3Z'-0"
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1981
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK IT-O"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-OfIK32(-0"
14 SUPER
INSTALLED 1981
COWER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-0"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8l-0"x3?'-0"
Austin Station 4
100
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
-------
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Austin
Station 5
Butanes
Pantanes and
Hexanes Bencene
Toluene
Ethyl-
benzene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
301-02
301-06
SG1-10
302-02
302-06
SG2-10
S03-02
SG4-02
SOS-1.5
72000.00
240000.00
1500000.00
120000.00
110000.00
1500.00
10000.00
120000.00
9500.00
110000.00
68000.00
160000.00
26000.00
22000.00
24000.00
110000.00
100000.00
10000.00
13000.00
24000.00
17000.00
8000.00
7400.00
5600.00
16000.00
6300.00
660.00
3800.00
13000.00
6300.00
2700.00
2200.00
26000.00
18000.00
5400.00
220.00
930.00
2800.00
1800.00
5SO.OO
400.00
25000.00
5100.00
2300.00
33.00
<32.00
690.00
<32.00
<32.00
O2.00
8200.00
6000.00
<32.00
<2.00
150000.00
110000.00
1100000.00
36000.00
30000.00
120000.00
190000.00
140000.00
12000.00
(ppmv)
Sample
Methane Butanes Total
CX-C5 Pentanes and Ethyl- Hydrocarbons
(as Methane) Hexanes Benzene Toluene bensene Xylenes less methane
SG1-02
SG1-06
301-10
SG2-02
SC2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
304-02
SG5-1.5
11182)
372743
2354982
188399
172699
2355
15705
188462
14920
37965
23469
55822
9071
7676
8373
38390
34900
3490
4142
7646
5475
2576
23S3
1803
5155
2030
213
1026
3511
1720
737
601
7099
4916
1475
60
223
6S6
427
130
95
5924
1209
545
8
4
162
4
4
4
1943
1422
4
0
45546
32607
333966
11017
9233
31056
5228S
40489
3686
Concentrations in vg/L represent the mean values of three GC/FID analyses per sample.
Concentrations at or below detection limits ace noted with a toss than symbol.
Concentrations in ppmv arc calculated aa discussed in Section 6, and rounded te the neatest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
Unit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported aa sero.
101
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Austin
Station 5
Sample
Depth - 02
301-02
S02-02
SG3-02
304-02
305-1.5
Averages
Depth - 06
S01-06
302-06
Averages
Depth - 10
301-10
SG2-10
Methane
crcs
(aa Methane)
Feet
72000.00
120000.00
10000.00
120000.00
9500.00
66300.00
feet
240000.00
110000.00
175000.00
Feet
1500000.00
1500.00
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes Benzene
110000
26000
110000
100000
10000
71200
68000
22000
45000
160000
24000
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
13000.00
8000.00
16000.00
6300.00
660.00
8792.00
24000.00
7400.00
13700.00
17000.00
5600.00
Ethyl-
Toluene benzene
3800.00 950.00
2700.00 550.00
18000.00 5100.00
5400.00 2300.00
220.00 33.00
6024.00 1186.60
13000.00 2800.00
2200.00 400.00
7600.00 1600.00
6300.00 1800.00
26000.00 25000.00
Xylenes
<32.00
<32.00
6000.00
O2.00
<2.00
1209. BO
690.00
02.00
353.00
<32.00
8200.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
150000
36000
190000
140000
12000
10S600
110000
30000
70000
1100000
120000
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Avenges 750750.00
92000.00 11300.00 16150.00 13400.00 4108.00
610000.00
Concentration at detection Units were epproxiaated by dividing the detection Unit by 2. The
approximations were used in eosiputing the averages.
102
-------
.* . • • •
* • "B
/* • " . '
• ••• • '• .
• SG-2 •
;<620pO)
i-v.« *.• • •
• .•••'»•-. i
• /. ^ ;•..••
•''SG-l V.
3453333)
. * * • • . " »
" « • • "
* " • * • .'
\. : • • /••
• * • •*".*,
* m ' " • ' "
• •.•*-. *•'-'
* *"*»*•"
• " •* ' I ' '
••'." .••
• " * "• " " *
* " * ** m T *-
.•••."" "'•" • •"'• '.''. ' '" ' '•
* ••*.*•"• *• •**7** *
*• •'*• •• • • * B
> • * • •• * "* ,*^ *«
«*"**•• • "•* * * *
•"."•"- " "."." • "" " " * * * . "
D
^^
11
y^vvr'r^O'^-^l1
• *
•.
»
.•
,
•;
*•
• *
••.'i
r
•''
>s
90
V:";'-:-;:>^v^
. • ..•"•••.."• *"•".*• . °
• . . •'..••
D
^^
12
S-3 '.•-'.;-X;:V:::-"::.-!
upo> ;•;;:.-;-:/;;:•;•..•;•.::
:A*^-.:-::; ':-'.':V.".:
;>
* * ^
c " •
*
•r
*
•
*
.-
':.
:'.-
* •"•'".^••;.''-::::.'-:»."".- ••
• "".•• •' •'•':.; "•' -;•."•'.
D
f*.
13
•-•".'!."•.'••• -:;; '.:-".-.'
'•".*'. . •• " '.
'•••":•'".•'•'•"•
*.'.'•.'' ' .
.'.*.• • '. * . *.
".' "•'.•*'• * *•.
.'•;." "."."'"'• "
• SG-5 •'"•"
(12000)* ".
'. "'•.•*'." • '. '
'• . • * * . *
* • j • "
• . • • .
'• SG-4 '. " .-
(140000) ;/•
.. . - • .
••-. :*. '.• :•
•. • . * • • • • ,
• * m * • • • .
''•''•'.'• • ' ' m
1 « * * •
SPECS. TYPICAL ALL TANKS.
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM DEPTH 11'-0"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x21'-4"
»1 UNLEADED
12 SUPER UNLEADED
13 REGULAR
Austin Station 5
103
-------
Austin Station 6
(All concentration values in
Station
AU6
AU6
AU6
&U6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
O
*• AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AUfi
AU6
AU6
AU6
Saaiple
Number
SG-01
SG-01
SG-02
SG-02
SG-03
SG-03
SG-04
SG-04
SG-OS
SG-OS
SG-03
SG-03
SG-02
SG-02
SG-05
SG-OS
SG-04
SG-03
SG-02
SG-05
SG-04
SG-04
SG-OS
SG-02
SG-03
Depth
(ft)
2.
6.
6.
2.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
Saaiple
Date
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/81
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/30/87
10/30/87
10/30/87
10/30/87
Sample
TIM
8:54:00
9:02:00
9:15:00
9:40:00
10:12:00
10:38:00
11:14:00
11:38:00
12:49:00
13:13:00
13:48:00
14:17:00
14:50:00
15:31:00
16:20:00
16:50:00
18:03:00
16:30:00
17:07:00
17:32:00
17:53:00
11:48:00
12:20:00
12:45:00
13:15:00
Methane
4500.0
710,000
4500.0
6100.0
0.3
14000.0
6700.0
6300.0
4800.0
3600.0
200.0
200.0
5493.0
4100.0
2400.0
4400.0
5000.0
5600.0
8500.0
10000.0
13000.0
3600.0
4800.0
3400.0
4600.0
Butane
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA
BA
HA
HA
HA
620.0
530.0
58000
210000
57000
300000
64000
13000
41000
71000
S5000
250000
270000
150000
140000
Beniene
(38.0
110000
(38.0
(190.0
(0.2
(190.0
(190.0
(190.0
(190.0
(190.0
(4.2
(4.2
(42.0
8300.0
(42.0
5600.0
(42.0
(250.0
(250.0
(250.0
(250.0
76000.0
4500.0
38000.0
(78.0
Toluene
3100.0
90000.0
(43.0
(220.0
(0.2
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
<4.B
(4.1
(48.0
8100.0
1800.0
5600.0
(48.0
(290.0
(290.0
(290.0
(290.0
700.0
1200.0
7600.0
(15.0
Ethyl-
bencne
(44.0
(220.0
(44.0
(220.0
(0.2
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
(220.0
(4.9
(4.9
(49.0
(49.0
(49.0
(49.0
-49.0
-270.0
-270.0
-270.0
-270.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
Xylenos
-48.0
-240.0
-48.0
-240.0
-0.2
-240.0
-240.0
-240.0
-240.0
-240.0
-5.8
-5.8
-5.8.0
-58.0
-58. 0
-58.0
-58.0
-260.0
-260.0
-260.0
-260.0
-31.0
-31.0
-31.0
-11.0
Total
Hydrocarbons
71000.0
960000.0
•700.0
13000.0
-0.2
laoooo.o
150000.0
130000.0
88000.0
90000.0
1900.0
2100.0
190000.0
610000.0
150000.0
740000.0
200000.0
180000.0
420000.0
690000.0
660000.0
250000.0
290000.0
160000.0
150000.0
-------
©
LSG-M.OCATION OF LEAK
IN 2" FIBERGLASS
PRODUCT LINE
SG-4
© O
o o
O O
'SG-5
O O
•.:PEAGRAVEL:/
*
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
SG-3»
• SG-2
NOTE: DEPTH OF LEAK 32" BELOW GRADE
II UNLEADED REGULAR |2 SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1984
COVER 3'-3"
BOTTOM 11'-3"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 12.000 GAL.
SIZE S'-
INSTALLED 1984
COVER 3'-3"
BOTTOM 11'-3"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x32'-0"
13 REGULAR
SAME AS TANK 12
14 DIESEL
SAME AS TANK 12
Austin Station 6
105
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by sample Number)
Austin
Station 7
Methane
Butanes
cl~cs Pentanea and
Sanple
302-02
SO2-06
303-02
503-06
304-02
(as Methane)
560.00
310OO.OO
340.00
59000.00
26.00
Hexanas
12.00
31000.00
100.00
39000.00
11.00
Benzene
<0.04
<42.00
<0.40
<42.00
<0.20
Toluene
(0.04
<48.00
<0.50
<48.00
5.00
Ethyl-
beneene
<0.06
<50.00
<0.30
<50.00
<0.20
Xylenes
<0.06
<58.00
<0.06
<58.00
<0.30
Total
Hydrocarbons
leas nethane
16.00
42000.00
150.00
55000.00
32000.00
(ppnv)
Sanpl*
Nathan*
crcs
(aa Hethan*)
Butanaa
Pantanas and
Hexanes Banian*
Ethyl-
Toluene benzene Xylanaa
Total
Hydrocarbons
less mathan*
302-02
302-06
303-02
303-06
504-02
630
45672
502
87494
39
4
10149
33
12846
4
4
10396
37
13697
8224
Concentrations In yg/L represent the mean values of three oc/riD analyses p*r sanpl*.
Concentrations at or below detection Halts are noted with a leas than symbol.
Concentrations In ppnv are calculated as discussed in Section 6, and rounded to the nearest
whole nunber. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as care.
106
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Nunber)
Sample
Depth - 02
SG2-02
503-02
S04-02
Averages
Depth - 06
S02-06
S02-06
Methane
VC5
(as Methane)
Feet
560.00
340.00
26.00
308.67
Peet
31000.00
59000.00
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes
12.00
100.00
11.00
41.00
31000.00
39000.00
Austin
Station ^
Ethyi-
Bencene Toluene benzene Xylenea
<0.04 <0.04 <0.06 <0.06
<0.40 <0.50 <0.50 <0.06
<0.20 5.00 <0.20 <0.30
0.11 1.76 0.13 0.07
<42.00 <48.00 <50.00 <58.00
<42.00 <48.00 <50.00 <58.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
16.00
150.00
32000.00
10722.00
42000.00
55000.00
Averages 49000.00
35000.00
21.00
24.00
25.00
29.00
41500.00
Concentration at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2. The
approximations vere used in computing the averages.
107
-------
SPECS. TYPICAL ALL TANKS.
INSTALLED 1984
COVER DEPTH 3'-5"
BOTTOM DEPTH 11'-5"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10,000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0'x30'-6"
PEAGRAVEL^
II SUPER UNLEADED
12 UNLEADED
13 REGULAR
14 DIESEL
Austin Station 7
108
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Connecticut
Station 1
fj/9/U
Sample
Methane
C1-C3
(as Methane)
Butanes
Pentanea and
Hexanes Benzine
Toluene
Ethyl-
bencene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
leas methan*
SOI-02
501-06
301-10
302-02
302-06
303-02
SO3-06
SO4-02
S04-06
SOS-02
503-06
503-10
00
40
00
30
80
13000.00
25000.00
2
2
3
2
00
00
00
00
6.00
20.00
<0.02
0.30
0.10
<0.02
280.00
350.00
<0.04
<0.02
0.60
3.00
0.50
<0.04
<0.08
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Connecticut
Station 1
Sample
Methane Butanes Total
CI-CB Pentanes and Ethyl- Hydrocarbons
(as Methane) Hexanes Bensene Toluene bencene Xyltnes less nethane
Depth -02 Feet
SO1-02
302-02
S03-02
SO4-02
S03-02
2.00
0.30
13000.00
2.00
3.00
20.00
0.10
280.00
(0.04
0.60
(0.04
(0.04
(10.00
(0.04
(0.06
(0.04
(0.04
250.00
<0.06
(0.08
(0.02
(0.02
(6.00
(0.04
(0.04
<0.04
<0.02
(8.00
(0.06
(0.08
28.00
0.30
2100.00
(0.04
2.00
Averages 2601.46
Depth - 06 Feet
Averages S001.04
Depth - 10 Feet
sai-10
305-10
Averages
1.00
6.00
3.50
60.14
1.02
50.02
0.61
0.82
70.61
0.30
0.50
0.40
1.02
<0.06
(0.06
0.03
KB.02
<0.04
<0.08
0.03
0.61
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
0.82
<0.04
<0.08
0.03
546.06
301-06
302-06
303-06
304-06
305-06
0.40
0.80
23000.00
2.00
2.00
(0.02
(0.02
350.00
(0.02
3.00
(0.08
(0.04
UO.OO
(0.04
(0.06
<0.04
(0.04
840.00
<0.04
(0.08
(0.04
(0.02
(6.00
(0.02
(0.04
(0.06
<0.04
(8.00
(0.04
(0.08
(0.20
0.70
3700.00
<0.04
11.00
742.36
3.00
0.50
1.75
Concentration at detection limit* were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
approximations were used in computing the averages.
The
110
-------
MOTOR
POOL
OFFICES
i
SHOPS
CLOSE
15
* SEE MOTE • SE
GAS ' (^O
SHACK v**su
o ° (
C UNLEADED PUMP
:„ D DD1ESEL
•SG-3
(3200)
11 UNLEADED 12 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1984 INSTALLED 1966
COVER
DEPTH 2'-10" COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
TANK BOTTOM lO'-IO" TANK BOTTOM 8'-4"
TANK TYPE STEEL TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. sooo GAL: CAP. isoo GAL.
SIZE B'xl3' SIZE S'^'^'-O"
SG-4 i
Von 1
WOODED AREA
13
14
E NOTE 0
) O
-N l2
• i
eg -j
ro.%0
11
PARKING JU
NORTH
SG-1
(lo!35)
NOT TO SCALE
(OUT OF SERVICE)
13 DIESEL 14 AND 15 LEADED
INSTALLED 1978 INSTALLED 1966
COVER DEPTH 6 '-8" " COVER DEPTH 4'-0"
TANK BOTTOM 12 '-0" TANK BOTTOM 9 '-4"
TANK TYPE STEEL TANK TYPE STEEl
CAP. 2000 GAL. CAP. 5000 GAL.
SIZE S'-4"x12'-Of1 SIZE S'-A'^O'-O"
* APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TANKS
PER STATE OF CONN. NOV 1. 1965
DRAWINGS AND INTERVIEWS WITH SHOP
PERSONAL.
Connecticut Station 1
111
-------
• SG-5
(24501)
SUPER PUMP
REGULAR PUMP
UNLEADED PUMP
PUMP ISLAND
• SG-1
(0.54)
• SG-2
(0.01)
SG-4 •
(0.11)
O
O
11
O
• SG-3
(8.00)
OFFICE
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
II SUPER
INSTALLED 1985
COVER DEPTH 2'-6"
TANK BOTTOM 10'-6"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 5000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-(Tutt*-4"
12 UNLEADED
SPEC. TYPICAL
OF SUPER
13 REGULAR
SPEC. TYPICAL
OF SUPER
Connecticut Station 2
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New It otic
Station 1
Sample
S01-02
SG1-06
501-10
S02-02
S02-06
502-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
S03-10
504-02
SG4-06
SG4-09
Sample
SG1-02
301-06
S01-10
302-02
S02-06
502-08
SO3-02
503-06
S03-10
S04-02
504-06
504-09
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
2.00
2.00
2.00
<40.00
<40.00
<40.00
0.80
0.60
1.00
0.80
<0.40
<0.40
Methane
C1-C3
(as Methane)
3
3
3
30
30
30
1
1
2
1
0
0
Benzene
<0.0«
<0.0»
<0.08
<150.QO
1400.00
2700.00
<0.08
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 1
Sample
Nathan*
crcs
(•a Methane)
Bencene
Toluene
Ethylbencene
Xylones
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lasa light
aliphatica)
Depth - 02 Feet
SQ1-02 2.00
S02-02 <40.00
303-02 0.80
304-02 O.SO
Averages 5.90
Dapth - 06 feet
301-06 2.00
302-06 <40.00
S03-06 0.60
S04-06 <0.40
Averages 5.10
Dapth - 10 reet
301-10 2.00
SO2-OS <40.00
S03-10 1.00
304-09 <0.40
Averages 3.80
<0.08
<150.00
<0.08
(0.08
18.78
(0.08
1400.00
<0.08
(1.00
350.14
(0.08
2700.00
(0.08
a. oo
67S.14
<0.10
<210.00
<0.10
<0.10
26.29
<0.10
1300.00
<0.10
140.00
360.02
<0.10
11000.00
<0.10
110.00
2777.52
<0.20
(360.00
<0.20
<0.20
45.07
<0.20
1100.00
<0.20
<4.00
275.55
<0.20
12000.00
<0.20
<4.00
3000.35
<0.02
<410.00
<0.20
<0.20
51.30
<0.02
<410.00
<0.20
<4.00
51.78
<0.02
10000.00
<0.20
<4.00
2500.33
<0.10
170000.00
<0.10
<0.10
42500.04
<0.10
210000.00
<0.10
1900.00
52975.02
<0.10
270000.00
<0.10
1300.00
67825.02
Concentrations at detection Units were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
116
-------
r ASPHALT SURFACE
" * 1 * ' • - . • * ' * * m •• ' •• 1 ••»*••*•
:>JV>;
V":
•sq-i
(Ojos;
*•<*•«
*. V •
SrS
:>t:>
». j * * i
*•/«*•,
.. j ..
• • « •
* • j* * • ,
**« ***• *
vfe1
•V'j'.V*
; 'mk' ; *.'
V'f ":""•
"'r
SGr2
O
D
O
21J6667)
•.T.'.'J
!"'1"l"*] 11
* \ *m* *•
"*.•«*"«
• ** •
'...*.
"*.*.*".
• • * • .
*•»«"•.
• • J • •
•"••*•".
• • ? • •
• • • ••
• •• • '
• • * mm
•'..••:
'.*.•••."/
**••* **
"*.*/*!
;/;.;:
'»V**\V
' ••*• •'
• • J ••
•"/•••v
• • * • •
***»•**
•• * • •
•• * • •
':*••*:
• » •
:":/•'
•v-:-v
• "•**•*
.'*•"«**
J mm^fm,
CONCRETE y
SURFACED SPECS TYPICAL OF 3 TAN)
INSTALLED 1982
*'.'"\. •'•.•"••••• *"••"" •"..*•"..••*.".•••'•••"•••"."•••"
• • I • »\ •••••"•• ••• •/•••*••'••••
\
O
D
I 1
! O !
i ^ ^^ ^ ^^
#2
• B
."/•
^ •
i
*"
*B
(
B •
•
'..
:..
• B
»
• •
• •
•
i
•
.
•
*• * 4
• •
*!•!
O
n
,
0!
t_ J
,13
:\VY-.
*».• *•
" • Jl • •
* *^ *•
(1*7)
,-.\i-.-
• • Ji • •
S3&
;/.*•;.*
••*•••
j •• ; i
••• •
"*.*.*'.
.vV'.v1
:;Sv-
• • * ••
',•'.''.•'.
• • * ••
':"••":"
•v':'v*
* • % >* * *
• • * ••
• •«*"•*!
• • * • •
1 • !* "I • !
'• SG-3
PEAGRAVEL-^
- i
11 REGULAR J^
COVER DEPTH 3 '-6" NORTH
BOTTOM OF TANK 1T-6" 12 UNLEADED
TANK TYbf PRP
CAP 10,000 GAL. EA. " SUPER UNLEADED
SIZE S'-O'^Z'-O"
NOT TO SCALE
Suffolk County, New York Station 1
117
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 2
Sample
SGl-02
301-06
301-10
562-02
SG2-06
302-10
303-02
304-02
304-06
504-10
505-02
Methane
C1~CS
(as Methane!
0.30
0.20
0.20
140.00
15.00
18.00
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.06
0.60
Bentene
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<29.00
<3.00
<0.30
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
Toluene
<0.04
(0.04
<0.04
420.00
410.00
38.00
<0.04
<0.04
0.30
<0.04
0.10
Ethylbencene
<0.04
<0.04
(0.04
130.00
28.00
<0.40
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
Xylenes
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<41.00
<4.00
<0.40
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
Total
Hydrocarbons
(leas Light
aliphatics )
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
2100.00
1100.00
110.00
<0.04
<0.04
0.30
<0 04
0 10
(pprav)
Sample
Methane
(as Methane)
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
Benzene Toluene Ethylbencene Xylenes aliphatics)
501-02
501-06
SO1-10
562-02
562-06
502-10
503-02
504-02
S04-06
504-10
503-02
0
0
0
209
112
27
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
109
107
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
529
283
29
0
0
0
0
0
Concentrationa in j/9/L represent the nean values of three OC/FXD analyses per sample.
Concentrations at or below detection Units are noted with a less than symbol.
Concentrations in ppav are calculated as discussed in Section 6. and rounded to the neai°<-.t
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the det«--»-i~n
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values beini tvpcited as z«io
118
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 2
Sample
Methane
(as Methane)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbencene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(leas light
aliphatic*)
Depth - 02 feet
S01-02
saz-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SOS-02
Averages
Depth - 06 reet
S01-OS
S02-06
S04-06
Averages
Depth - 10 feet
SQ1-10
302-10
504-10
Averages
O.JO
140.00
0.20
0.20
0.60
<0.04
<29.00
<0.04
<0.04
'0.04
<0.04
420.00
<0.04
<0.04
0.10
<0.04
130.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<41.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
(0.04
2100.00
<0.04
<0.04
0.10
28.26
0.20
7S.OO
0.08
25.09
2.92
<0.04
<3.00
<0.04
0.51
84.03
<0.04
410.00
0.30
136.77
26.02
<0.04
28.00
<0.04
9.35
4.12
<0.04
<4.00
<0.04
0.68
420.03
<0.04
1100.00
0.30
366.77
0.20
18.00
0.06
6.09
<0.04
<0.30
<0.04
0.06
<0.04
38.00
<0.04
12.68
<0.04
<0.40
<0.04
0.08
<0.04
<0.40
<0.04
0.08
<0.04
110.00
<0.04
36.68
Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
119
-------
SG- (0.01)
1
1
:}
:»
.;4"''
}'•
....
I
1
;l
;|
1
'•"":"'
i
1
i
t
1
1
s
i
I
I
"t
f~ ~% ~~~ ~i
o
D
i 1
©
.*
©
D
SG-5
(0.10)
14
O
1
1 :h
%
•
'•!
o
D
t?
©
f ": " '
©
D
15
O
••
,
^
"* *•
•
'
-
-
o
D
m A
13
©
©
D
it
o
j
III
ill
11
i^s
pi
*'•'••;';.•'.
11
If
Pi
:9-'.-:;'.-.'..:'
ill
il
•f **'• j.1
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 4
Ug/L)
Sample
S01-02
SO1-06
S01-10
SG2-02
SQ2-06
592-10
S03-02
561-06
503-10
5G4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
Saaple
501-02
S01-06
SG1-10
SO2-02
502-06
S02-10
503-02
503-06
503-10
304-02
SO4-06
504-10
Methane
Vcs
(as Methane)
-------
SOIL CAS DATA
(Dati Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 4
Sample
Methane
C1-C3
(aa Methane)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbencene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(l«sa light
aliphatical
Depth - 02 reet
S01-02
SG2-02
S03-02
SQ4-02
Averages
Depth - 06 feet
301-06
S02-06
503-06
9O4-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Met
301-10
302-10
303-10
304-10
Averages
<0.50
<0.50
<24.00
<24.00
6.12
<24.00
<24.00
<24.00
(24.00
12.00
(24.00
(24.00
(24.00
(24.00
12.00
0.25
(O.SO
1300.00
<27.00
32S.SO
620.00
480.00
3700.00
860.00
1415.00
730.00
980.00
3300.00
1800.00
1702.50
14.00
46.00
<30.00
120.00
48.75
<30.00
120.00
<30.00
220.00
92.50
120.00
300.00
1000.00
930.00
587.50
(0.70
<0.70
<37.00
<37.00
9.43
(37.00
(37.00
(37.00
<37.00
18.50
(37.00
<37.00
(37.00
(37.00
18.50
(0.80
(0.80
(42.00
(42.00
10.70
<42.00
<42.00
<42.00
(42.00
21.00
(42.00
(42.00
(42.00
(42.00
21.00
1100.00
1600.00
54000.00
25000.00
20425.00
26000.00
31000.00
61000.00
44000.00
40500.00
42000.00
42000.00
69000.00
58000.00
52750.00
Concentrations at detection Halts were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
122
-------
SANO SACKFUL
o
o
SG-2
(24867) Q
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
SPECS TYPICAL OF 3 TANKS
INSTALLED 1980
COVER DEPTH 3'-8"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-8"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 70.000 GAL. EA.
SIZE 8'-0"x30'-6 1/2"
II SUPER UNLEADED
12 REGULAR
13 UNLEADED
I
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Suffolk County, Nev York Station 4
123
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Dati Arranged by Simple Number)
New York
Station 5
Sample
SG1-02
SO1-06
sai-io
502-02
SG2-06
503-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SO4-10
SG5-02
sas-os
Methane
VC5
(as Methane)
0.40
3.00
<24.00
<5.00
<24.00
2.00
<20.00
<39.00
<39.00
4.00
<20.00
Bencene
<0.04
<0.04
<27.00
290.00
2000.00
<0.04
1100.00
2300.00
I
<0.04
2SO.OO
Toluene
0.04
<0.04
1700.00
360.00
2800.00
0.08
960.00
1SOO.OO
13000.00
3.00
360.00
Ethylbensene
<0.04
<0.04
<37.00
<7.00
620.00
<0.04
<37.00
130.00
2900.00
<0.04
<37.00
Xylenes
<0.04
<0.04
<42.00
<8.00
<42.00
(0.04
<38.00
<76.00
91.00
<0.04
<38.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatleg )
3.00
(0.04
26000.00
7200.00
39000.00
0.20
44000.00
64000.00
110000.00
13.00
7500.00
Sample
Methane
crcs
(aa Methane)
Benzene
(ppmv)
Toluene Gthylbenzene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass light
aliphitica)
301-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
362-02
S02-06
SO3-02
504-02
S04-06
304-10
SGS-02
SOS-OS
1
s
18
4
18
3
15
29
29
6
IS
0
0
4
90
612
0
334
699
0
0
76
0
0
450
95
726
0
247
386
3348
1
93
0
0
4
1
140
0
4
29
648
0
4
0
0
5
1
5
0
4
8
20
0
4
1
0
6873
2050
10621
0
12372
18106
29008
3
2051
Concentrations in
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 5
Sample
Methane
VC3
(aa Methane)
Bentene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
altphatics)
Depth - 02 Feet
501-02
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG5-02
Averages
Depth - 06 feet
301-06
SG2-06
304-06
305-06
Avarages
Depth - 10 fa«t
301-10
SG4-10
Averages
0.40
<5.00
2.00
<20.00
4.00
3.78
3.00
<24.00
<39.00
(20.00
11.12
<24.00
<39.00
15.75
<0.04
290.00
<0.04
1100.00
(0.04
278.01
<0.04
2000.00
2300.00
2SO.OO
1137.51
<27.00
1000000.00
500006.75
<0.04
360.00
0.08
960.00
3.00
264.62
<0.04
2800.00
1500.00
360.00
1165.01
1700.00
13000.00
7350.00
<0.04
<7.00
<0.04
<37.00
<0.04
4.41
<0.04
620.00
130.00
<37.00
192.13
<37.00
2900.00
1459.25
<0.04
<8.00
<0.04
<38.00
<0.04
4.61
<0.04
<42.00
<76.00
<38.00
19.50
<42.00
91.00
56.00
3.00
7200.00
0.20
44000.00
13.00
10243.24
<0.04
39000.00
64000.00
7500.00
27625.00
26000.00
110000.00
68000.00
Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection liait by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
125
-------
o
IV
O
o
#2
o
SG-2
<23100)
SAND BACKFILL
©
O
• SG-5 (3756).li
• SG-3 (
SG-1
(8668)
SPECS TYPICAL OF 3 TANKS
INSTALLED 1972
COVER DEPTH 3'-6"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-6"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 GAL. EA.
SIZE 8'-0"x21l-6"
#1 REGULAR
12 UNLEADED
13 SUPER UNLEADED
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Suffolk County, New York Station 5
126
-------
Sample
Methane
crcs
(as Methane)
SOIL GAS DMA
(Date Arranged by Sample Number)
New York
Station 6
Bentene Toluene Cthylbenzene
Xylenea
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatic*)
501-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
302-10
SG4-03
SG4-06
3.00
<0.04
15.00
<0.20
<0.40
1.00
S.OO
<0.04
<0.06
<0.04
<0.30
<0.60
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
S.OO
1.00
20.00
55.00
<0.04
0.20
<0.04
<0.08
<0.04
<0.40
(0.70
(0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.08
<0.04
<0.40
<0.80
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
90.00
4.00
700.00
1500.00
<0.04
13.00
(ppnv)
Sample
501-02
SG1-06
502-02
502-06
502-10
504-03
504-06
Methane
VC5
(as Methane)
4
0
22
0
0
1
•7
Bensene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Toluene
0
1
0
S
14
0
0
Ethylbencene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xylenes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
0
23
1
181
386
0
3
Concentrations in
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Nuaber)
New York
Station 6
Methane
Sample (aa Methane)
Depth - 02 Feet
SOl-02
S02-02
S04-03
Averages
Depth - 06 feet
SG1-06
SG2-06
SG4-06
Averages
Depth - 10 reet
302-10
Averages
3
IS
1
6
<0
<0
5
1
<0
0
.00
.00
.00
.33
.04
.20
.00
.71
.40
.20
Benzene
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
0
.04
.04
.04
.02
.06
.30
.04
.07
.60
.30
Toluene Ethylbenzene
<0
1
(0
0
.04
.00
.04
.35
S.OO
20.00
0.20
8
55
55
.40
.00
.00
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
0
.04
.04
.04
.02
.08
.40
.04
.09
.70
.35
Xylenes
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
0
.04
.04
.04
.02
.08
.40
.04
.09
.80
.40
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
<0.04
4.00
<0.04
1.35
90.00
700.00
13.00
267.67
1500.00
1500,00
Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approxinatlons were used in computing the averages.
128
-------
<-U TUBE SAMPLE POINT
L. • " * * *• •*• •"• •* *»T»^ ••'•••* f*^ m •* t •••
..• sp_i -v: ••< .. ; .. •.••.•_•.•-•.•.•-•• .•.*.-.•>.• .'
::V.;
. * • *
v--v
.".•
XY
'-::'•
''•?:
Ivv
%
&
te
I-'V-'I
!• •.
f«"sS
ffsV-
g
k:/:
L* * *• i
i* * • •
L'-V
5»:
5.oV-'.i7:.:.Y.: •'•
o
D
O
O
o
11
• : •
* i
*•
•
•
v
>•
•
;
*»»*'
*.v*
'.:'•
• £
' *•*•*
' • •
• J i
* J
/•
*•
• •
O
D
O
O
O
12
tt ^
.*
«*
.'•
— *
*•_•*•-•*• -•••1/35,
o
n
o
o
o
*3
* • * 1
*•"•*!
:?J
•Y'j
•••1
• • J
•* •!
S3
* * t
9
•*• 1 • Cf* *>
• • ; w bu- i
•::> (6.5)
.**.*
:"'"*|
:Sj
:)-v
,V"-''j
# *•!
• *«"«"*""/nL*»*«"«* " "• *j
*•*•_"»* »_»*^fc.*- •_"•* •"• •_*•*•_•* _•**.•*•_ *•_•*•!
.•.%V.5.-.V.V.!.V.^ •!.••.!.'• !.V.:.V.s V.'.Y*
L s "••"•'••*t *••*!&•* • *••*•"••*. ••"••Y»*«Y>*»Y<**Yt*»Y
-------
SOIL CAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 1
Sample
SO1-02
S01-06
SO2-02
S02-06
503-02
303-06
S03-10
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
6.00
4.00
a. oo
4.00
2.00
1.00
0.40
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
1.00
1.00
<0.06
Bensene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Toluene
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
110.00
47.00
5.00
Ethyl-
benzene
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
110.00
130.00
8.00
Xylenes
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
(0.30
110.00
100.00
6.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
<1 .00
<1 .00
<1.00
<1 .00
590.00
450.00
34.00
< ppmv)
Sample
Methane Butanes Total
ei~cS Pentanes and ethyl- Hydrocarbons
(as Methane) Hexanes Beniene Toluene bencene Xylenes less methane
SG1-02
301-06
302-02
S02-06
S03-02
303-06
303-10
9
6
12
6
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
24
29
2
0
0
0
0
24
22
1
0
0
0
0
136
102
8
Concent rations in jsg/L represent the mean values of three QC/FID analyses per sample.
Concentrations at or below detection limits are noted with a leas than synbol.
Concentrations in ppmv are calculated as discussed in Section 6, and rounded to the nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
130
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 1
Sample
Depth - 02
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG3-02
Averages
Depth - 06
SG1-06
SG2-06
SG3-06
Averages
Depth - 10
SG3-10
Averages
Methane
(as Methane)
Feet
6.00
8.00
2.00
5.33
Feet
4.00
4.00
1.00
3.00
Feet
0.40
0.40
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes
<0.06
<0.06
1.00
0.35
<0.06
<0.06
1.00
0.35
<0.06
0.03
Bencene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
0.05
Toluene
<0.04
<0.04
110.00
36.68
<0.04
<0.04
47.00
15.68
5.00
5.00
Ethyl-
benzene Xylenes
<0.20 <0.30
<0.20 <0.30
110.00 110.00
36.73 36.77
<0.20 <0.30
<0.20 <0.30
130.00 100.00
43.40 33.43
8.00 6.00
8.00 6.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
<1.00
<1.00
590.00
197.00
<1.00
<1.00
450.00
150.33
34.00
34.00
Concentration at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2. The
approximations were used in computing the averages.
131
-------
SG-1 •
(0.25)
i ' — —i
I I I
13
12
TANKS
11
SG-2 •
(0.25)
• SG-3
(358)
L_J I J I J
iONCRETE COVER
II UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1973
BOTTOM OF TANK 131"
COVER DEPTH 35"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 2r-4Hx8'-0"
CAP 8000 GAL
12 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1973
BOTTOM OF TANK 125"
COVER DEPTH 29"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE ZV-V'xB'-O"
CAP 8000 GAL.
13 SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1973
BOTTOM OF TANK 120"
COVER DEPTH 24"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 211-4"x81-0"
CAP 8000 GAL.
NOT TO SCALE
Rhode Island Station 1
132
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 2
Sample
301-02
SG1-06
S01-10
S02-02
502-06
SG2-10
503-02
S63-06
SQ3-10
5C4-02
S04-06
304-10
Methane
C1-C5
(aa Methane)
6.00
14.00
4.00
6.00
11.00
12.00
8.00
3.00
2.00
12.00
9.00
S.OO
Butanes
Fentanes and
Hexanea
<0.04
260.00
<0.04
<0.06
48.00
38.00
<0.06
<0.06
<0.0«
<0.06
<0.06
<0.06
Beniene
-------
Sample
Methane
(as Methane)
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Numb* r I
Rhode Island
Station 2
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl-
bentene
Xylanes
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
6.00
6.00
8.00
12.00
8.00
Depth - 03 Feet
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
Averages
Depth - 06 feet
SQ1-06
562-06
SG3-06
SG4-06
Averages 9 29
Depth - 10 feet
S01-10
SG2-10
SG3-10
SG4-10
Averages
4.00
72.00
2.00
5.00
20.75
<0.04
<0.06
<0.06
(0.06
<0.08
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
-------
SG-1 (467)
CONCRETE COVER
Z
SG-4 •
(0.25)
i i r~~i
1
*
,
O
O
11
D
O
o
12
n
1
0
0
13
x
I ^
SG-2
(217)
-TANKS
SG-3
(0.25)
11 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1976
BOTTOM OF TANK 143"
COVER DEPTH 47"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 2r-4"x8'-0"
CAP 8000 GAL.
I? SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1976
BOTTOM OF TANK 141"
COVER DEPTH 45"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE Zr-V'xa'
CAP 6000 GAL.
13 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1976
BOTTOM OF TANK 141"
COVER DEPTH 45"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE zr-^na'
CAP 8000 GAL.
Rhode Island Station 2
135
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 3
(i/g/LI
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
Butanes
Pentanas and
Henanes Bentene
Toluene
Ethyl-
bencene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
less methane
501-02
SG1-06
SQ1-10
SG2-02
S02-06
S02-10
S03-02
363-06
SQ3-10
504-02
SG4-06
.00
.00
.00
9.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
9.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
-------
Methane
(Data
Butanes
SOIL GAS DATA
(vg/L)
Arranged by Sample Nunbarl
Rhode Island
Station 3
C.-C. Pentanes and
Sample
Depth - 02
SG1-02
502-02
503-02
SG4-02
Averages
Depth - OC
501-06
502-06
503-06
SG4-06
Averages
Depth - 10
501-10
502-10
SG3-10
(aa Methane)
Feet
8.00
9.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
Feet
5.00
3.00
5.00
9.00
5.50
Feet
4.00
3.00
4.00
Hexanes
<0.04
(0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
Banian*
<0.08
<0.06
<0.08
<0.08
0.04
(0.08
(0.08
<0.08
<0.08
0.04
(0.08
<0.08
<0.08
Toluene
<0.08
<0.08
(0.08
0.80
0.23
(0.08
<0.08
(0.08
0.20
0.08
(0.08
<0.08
<0.08
Ethyl-
bencene
<0.10
(0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.1Q
<0.10
(0.10
<0.10
0.05
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
Xylenea
<0.20
(0.20
(0.20
<0.20
0.10
<0.20
(0.20
<0.20
(0.20
0.10
(0.20
(0.20
<0.20
Total
Hydrocarbons
leas methane
<1.00
<1.00
(1.00
(1.00
0.50
(1.00
<1.00
<1.00
0.30
0.45
(1.00
(1.00
(1.00
Averages
3.61
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.50
Concentration at detection limits were approxinatad by dividing the detection Unit by 2.
•pproxiaations cere used in computing the averages.
The
137
-------
SG-3
(0.25)1
01 To
•
I !
o
i
L'lJ LfiJ
12
I 1 1 II—
I O jj© 0
'ill
I I
I I
I I
L'iJ
!i
L_«J LflJ
SG-4
0.28)
S6-1 •
(0.25)
NOTE: TANKS fl THRU 16 WERE INSTALLED IN 1965
• SG-2
(0.25)
II UNLEADED
BOTTOM OF TANK 102"
COVER DEPTH 38"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
12 UNLEADED
BOTTOM OF TANK 103"
COVER DEPTH 39"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
13 REGULAR
BOTTOM OF TANK 100.5"
COVER DEPTH 36.5"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
14 REGULAR
BOTTOM OF TANK 102"
COVER DEPTH 38"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
.15 SUPER UNLEADED
.BOTTOM OF TANK 100"
.COVER DEPTK 36"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
16 SUPER UNLEADED
BOTTOM OF TANK 99"
COVER DEPTH 35"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP 4000 GAL.
NOT TO SCALE
Rhode Island Station 3
138
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 4
Sample
Methane
VC5
(a* Methane)
Butanes
Pentanes and
Hexanes Bencene
Toluene
Cthyl-
beniene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
leea methane
SOl-02
SOI-06
301-10
302-02
SG2-06
502-10
303-02
S63-06
S03-10
S04-02
S04-06
00
00
1100.00
820.00
2800.00
5
6
490.00
5.00
9.00
15.00
130.00
84.00
120.00
110.00
390.00
<0.02
<0.02
3400.00
<0.04
2.00
<0.04
10000.00
5600.00
30.00
23.00
95.00
<0.04
0.06
610.00
<0.04
0.04
<0.04
120.00
110.00
31 .00
19.00
78.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.10
<0.04
5.00
0.20
1300.00
1400.00
23.00
120.00
400.00
<0.06
0.10
<2.00
-------
Sample
Methane
las Methane)
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
Rhode Island
Station 4
Butanes
Fentanes and
Hexanes Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl-
benzene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
leas methane
Depth - 02 Feet
SG1-02
SG2-02
303-02
S04-02
1100.00
5.00
5.00
130.00
120.00
<0.02
<0.04
10000.00
30.00
<0.04
(0.04
120.00
31.00
<0.04
<0.04
1300.00
23.00
<0.06
(0.06
<0.50
26.00
<0.06
<0.08
380.00
640.00
0.04
<0.06
24000.00
Averages 310.00
•Depth - 06 feet
Averages 229.75
Depth - 10 feet
SO1-10 2800.00
S02-10 490.00
303-10 15.00
2530.01
37.51
332.76
S.83
101.52
Averages
1101.67
1428.00
390.00
3400.00
<0.04
1263.34
33.27
95.00
670.00
<0.04
255.01
356.00
78.00
<0.10
0.20
26.08
30.09
400.00
<2.00
<0.0«
133.68
216.38
290.00
<2.00
<0.08
97.01
6160.02
301-05
SG2-06
303-06
SG4-O6
820.00
6.00
9.00
84.00
110.00
<0.02
2.00
5600.00
23.00
O.OS
0.04
110.00
19.00
<0.04
S.OO
1400.00
120.00
0.10
<0.06
<0.50
25.00
0.50
<0.08
S40.00
480.00
15.00
30.00
16000.00
4131.25
2400.00
12000.00
16.00
4805.33
Concentration at detection liaits were approximated by dividing the detection Halt by 2.
approximations were used in conputing thai averages.
The
140
-------
• SG-2
(40051
• SG-4
(20000)
15
L°J
"61
ol
14
12
LQJ
ro
16
L?J
13
SG-3
(15)
II
_QJ
• SG-1
(1173)
V~>
NOTE: TANKS II THRU IS WERE INSTALLED IN 1966
11 UNLEADED
TANK BOTTOM 111"
COVER DEPTH 47"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE Za'-lVuS1-*"
CAP. 4000 GAL.
12 UNLEADED
TANK BOTTOM 107"
COVER DEPTH 44"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 231-H"x5'-4"
CAP. 4000 GAL.
13 SUPER UNLEADED
TANK BOTTOM 108"
COVER DEPTH 44"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 23'-n"x5'-4"
CAP. 4000 GAL.
14 SUPER UNLEADED
TANK BOTTOM 107.5"
COVER DEPTH 43"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE'ZS'-lT'xS1-
CAP. 4000 GAL.
IS REGULAR
TANK BOTTOM 108"
COVER DEPTH 44"
TANK TYPE STEEL
TANK SIZE 23l-11"x5'-4"
CAP. 4000 GAL.
16 KEROSENE
TANK BOTTOM 126"
COVER DEPTH 30"
TANK TYPE FRP
TANK SIZE ZS'-lV'xB'-O"
CAP. 6000 GAL.
INSTALLED 1984
NOT T0 SCALE
Rhode Island Station 4
141
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 1
(*/g/L)
Sample
SG1-02
501-06
S62-02
502-06
563-02
S03-06
504-02
S04-06
505-06
Methane
C -C
1 5
(as Methane)
1200.00
38.00
<0.08
34.00
48000.00
42000.00
7100.00
7800.00
2000.00
Bencene
<0.90
<0.04
<0.04
<0.90
<9.00
<9.00
<9.00
<89.00
<89.00
Toluene
<0.08
<0.04
<0.04
180.00
3400.00
6200.00
1300.00
8300.00
11000.00
Ethylbenceno
<0.80
<0.04
<0.04
<0.80
<12.00
<12.00
<12.00
<120.00
<120.00
Xylenea
<0.80
<0.08
<0.08
150.00
1200.00
2800.00
22.00
1100.00
4900.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
ISO 10
40. .0
0.60
740.00
12000.00
14000.00
9500.00
31000.00
26000.00
(pprav)
Sanple
501-02
SG1-06
502-02
SO2-06
503-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
S04-06
505-06
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
1805
57
0
51
71692
62848
10604
11650
2993
Bencene
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
14
14
Toluene
0
0
0
47
883
1614
338
2156
2863
Ethylbeneene
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
14
14
Xylenes
0
0
0
34
271
632
5
248
1107
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
& a
so
t o
4 w
181
3010
3494
2462
7929
6493
Concentrations in
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sanpla Numb*rI
San Diego
Station 1
log/I. I
Saapla
Methana
crcs
(aa Mathana)
Baniana
Toluana
Ethylbanzana
Xylanas
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass liqht
aliphatica)
Papth - 02 Faat
301-02
362-02
SG3-02
304-02
Avaragaa
Dapth - 06 faat
1200.00
<0.08
48000.00
7100.00
14075.01
SG1-06
302-06
SG3-06
364-06
SO 5-06
38.00
34.00
42000.00
7800.00
2000.00
<0.90
(0.04
<9.00
(9.00
2.37
<0.04
<0.90
<9.00
<89.00
<89.00
<0.08
<0.04
3400.00
1300.00
1175.01
<0.04
180.00
6200.00
8300.00
11000.00
Avaraqas
10374.40
18.79
5136.00
<0.80
<0.04
U2.00
<12.00
3.10
-------
o
o
D
"•'
:::M
;-;:••
.;£•
$
It^'^JLs'
370) W2600Q
D
*2
SG-1
(110)
O
g :::[;/&? '-:- ^-il-iZjV: SS
^^^^•i^^i:^M':::?;^'$Hl^^^
r.-:' ••••--.• -•.•••.•.•.•.;:•.•...--,•.•••.-.•.•.•....- :•-.--..-'•.-.•.--•.-.•.-.•:•.•.* -• • .--..•..-•-.•; .-•
'i®^
Ǥ;H^
D
13
O
'&•. SSvW^'1''-" v fe; -
D
14
0
^;;;::};^yv.;.^v^VW;
||
'Bv;'v>:
SS:;j;;::
•:::;.w>ig
'SG-3
(13000)
-SG-a
(20250)
fl UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1971
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
TANK BOTTOM 11"-0"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 12.000 GAL.
SIZE ar-
12 SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1978
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
TANK BOTTOM ll'-O"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 12,000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0" x 35'-ll*
13 REGULAR
(UNLEADED
SPECS ARE
TYPICAL)
14 UNLEADED
(UNLEADED
SPECS ARE
TYPICAL)
San Diego Station 1
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 2
lt/9/L)
Sample
SG1-02
501-06
S02-02
502-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
S04-06
Nethane
C1~C5
(as Methane)
5200.00
51000.00
110000.00
110000.00
21000.00
33000.00
33000.00
37000.00
Bencene
<9.00
<89.00
<89.00
-------
SOII. GAS DATA
(Date Arranged by Sample Numb*rI
San Diego
Station 2
Sample
Methane
vs
IBB Methane)
Benzene Toluene Ethyrlbensene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatic*)
Depth - 02 Feet
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
Averages
Depth - 06 feet
301-06
302-06
303-06
304-06
5200.00
110000.00
21000.00
33000.00
42300.00
51000.00
110000.00
35000.00
37000.00
(9.00
(89.00
<89.00
<89.00
34.50
(89.00
(89.00
(89.00
(89.00
710.00
7600.00
4100.00
7800.00
5052.50
5000.00
8900.00
11000.00
9700.00
<12.00
(120.00
(120.00
(120.00
46.50
(120.00
(120.00
(120.00
(120.00
(11.00
1900.00
900.00
1100.00
976.38
700.00
1900.00
5100.00
980.00
2200.00
36000.00
31000.00
64000.00
34800.00
22000.00
38000.00
76000.00
77000.00
Averages
58250.00
44.50
8650.00
60.00
2170.00
53250.00
Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection Unit by 2.
The approximations were used in conputing the averages.
146
-------
IBilililllii
'. • •'-'•••.•;.•'• ,*'•''> •.'-'•••.'•"•'." '•'•'"• '•'•.'..'•"• J '•"!"";*"".**i-"'"'.v.''''"'.1 ; •*.'•'•'• v» •'•'•'.• .v .••.'• '.••.i!'-".'' •'.•••'•'•'"•'"•'•'.'.'.•'••;. V**;' '•''•„• ,"•'.'.'••" '•!•"*" '•*."• ;:• ••;•.'•'••••'•'. '.'•'.'•'•' r"'.;. •."•-" •'•'•'• ;•'.'•'•'•'•'•;•'.", ••."•'• '•*•."• ",;«vv-u'- ".'••• •"• t'S*; •••:•'• 'I M I
.',v. !-*•• •.'•.'•'*: •.'•;'.••,"•'-.'•.•' •;*"-;r'.'^t!-..Vii*"***! *•"•»"•.•*!".*•*' "/•;'•,'.';••*, "••• •>'."', •. •'.•'.'' •'•'. ••••.'.' '••'.'• *!•'•'• •"•',•-'•• ^•'•••'••••..•.•.•.'i ".•••.:•.'«•.- •*•*.•-••." "•••*.•'." 'L;'/ •.'•'•••.;--•..'•;"•..:•.-' ;.•.- ••'-:;lL rl /.•
•iSii^
p}l2100);J
s)f smu i
o
0
11
n
— te $
J\::::"-;'V:V-' -'•>'•'
"'•'•'.*'•'-" "i"* I-'r": •';•.•.
•'•"'."• •'•'."/.•'•".'•'•.'• f
•^^vpi^^l/ife^l
O
©
©
12
SS!Mii *• -i::ss:;^
^vl^i:
$Si!ftlggffiS^ SV^^
i^si^ss^sw56^)sss^oi
v^l;^^:i;^iS^:iS:'
O
©
13
1 1
iiii.y**
i^*#f0SG-4 •
pp;p;Pj;:r-v( 70500)
1
:^v^::^ ::::
m
II UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1972
COVER DEPTH 4'-4"
TANK BOTTOM 12f-4"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 SAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x21'-10"
12 SUPER UNLEADED
(SPECS TYPICAL
OF UNLEADED)
13 REGULAR
(SPECS TYPICAL
OF UNLEADED)
I
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
San Diego Station 2
147
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 3
Sample
SG1-02
SG2-02
S02-06
S03-02
503-06
SO4-02
SO5-02
SOS-OS
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
0.40
10.00
22.00
4.00
17.00
<0.10
0.90
2.00
Bensene
<0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Toluene
<0.06
<0.10
17.00
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.20
<0.10
Ethylbenzene
<0.06
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Xylenes
<0.06
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.80
<0.10
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatic!)
<0.04
<0.10
62.00
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
1.00
<0.10
(ppmv)
Sample
301-02
S02-02
S02-06
S03-02
SG3-06
504-02
505-02
SGS-06
Methane
e —e
cl C5
(as Methane)
1
15
33
6
26
0
1
3
Bensene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Toluene
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Ethylbeniene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xylenes
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
Total
Hydrocarbons
'less light
a.iphatics)
o
16
0
0
0
0
0
Concentrations in //g/L represent the mean values of three OC/FID analyses per sample.
Concentrations at or below detection limits are noted with a less than symbol.
Concentrations in ppav are calculated as discussed in Section 6, and rounded to the nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
148
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 1
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
Benzene Toluene Ethylbencene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(leas light
aliphatics)
Depth - 02 feet
S01-02
SO 2-02
S03-02
SG4-02
SG5-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Feet
SG2-06
SG3-06
S05-06
Averages
0.40
10.00
4.00
<0.10
0.90
3.07
22.00
17.00
2.00
13.67
<0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.06
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.20
0.08
17.00
<0.10
<0.10
5.70
<0.06
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
O.OS
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.06
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.80
0.20
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
O.OS
<0.04
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
1.00
0.23
62.00
<0. 10
(0.10
20.70
Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
149
-------
p "•'•* I '*•
••«••••
p * • • • •
V:w
*."•• •"•••
* *•***•*
• *•" **
• SG-3 j
••..•• r
j •• i *• •*
"I*/*.*.
**•**•»•
• * • p • *
• ** p **
*.*•••".'•••'
••**p*p**»
*/•••*"•••'
*••»•*
YV/»\V
*• * *•*
*•••*•••
•. • V
;SG-2.V
• ••• 1 "I
*.*••«".*.*•'
"I*/*!"!1
**•*••
'.*•••".*•*•'
••.!.•%••'
***•*•
".'.''".•P<
• *•••*
••••••'
. • * • * *
• •*•**
£ ** p **
•
•* 9 •
• 5fr~3*
i / n 52 1*
V«rl*«?J
• !PP!**»**^**£**P
••p • •.• •. • •„•••••
• PP ; «p I •• j •• j •• * ••
• .••P'-*P**P**P**P*
D
^*^.
O
©
o
ii
*••*••* •• 2 " • •* • **
* J •• J mm J •• * *• J •• *
• ^ *» **^* * ** * **»* ** *
.•"•.*•*•*.•••.•••-*•••.*•••
."•*•*."•
* • • •
•..«••
•.•.".
** •
""•"/•*"
." •".".*
• *•_ •
• • •
* • ." *.,
•
PP ; ,
• CP p
i * ** p *
p j PP
"••*•'
• * p*
*PP* * *
p* * \ P*
•"•pT
.*;.•.
•p*.**p
•• f
».«" p
I**!*.
•.'.•*:*•
"*.*/•*"
*• * *
• £ • V
.• •••
•*."••'
*""p"
"••**"
*«*p**p
p * PP
"••"; *
• •• •
"•••".*•
"!*""
• •••
'•*«**p
•* p
' *.*•.
• • *
» j ••
/*!"!'
'•**•*•*
• *• •
'.•••A'
; .P'.'PP : «P ;••;••.••:
•.••.••.••.•••••p*
• ••.••p*.p*«p*»«r«
PI PP pp pp PI P.
D
_
(S)
©
o
12
". • .*.*. • .'.*. • .*/. • .*/. • .'.'P • p*
•^p'p*,** • • ?****»**
.* *^* PB m ^ *•* *i
»*•*. P"I*I.":"P P":*«P":"P p*;".
^••7.
p ; PP •
* *••
"•*••"
• • *
'.'•'."'.
*•*•"• '
•* * *p P'
I*"p*!
,p* p_i
p**p*.
•**P*I
!**••'
/•**«
* P **
/•"*;.
* *•'
« •'•*."'
"I*.""
•*•*••!
.••.i.
ly/Vi
§ i pp
p p •
p«
..:/•
I*\:
p*V
% * P**
.".*
• • PP
•**•*!
'.I."
*•*•**•
*».•"•
» *P*
• i •• i •• I •• i ••!•••
• ••••••••••••••••».'
y.v/pV.'V*.v"*.v*§ *pV •"*
D
©
0
o
13
'••p"p»«**p' *P»P" *.•.".•.'
•p**"«***» •••*•••*•••
r ; «p ; PP j p i pp i P* j <
••-•••.•• p*p.p*»_p*«
p* . pp ; p* ••;•»: ••
.•••..'••..•• .•••..••*..•••.
:>•:::
;.;/;,
•§»
p ,*PP
*p«"'
•!;/;
•*!*•*•
"• I
*PI**
•'**••
p ** ••
•p"*p*
;Sv
•.v.s
:":-'":
.••:/.'
"-i»*
"• • •* *
'•**•*
» ^ * •
."•.'/•'
•p p*
!*••**
•!%•:
i- •
00
*••
'•••V
t •• •
,"•••*.'
p***pp
'."!*
}*:'v
* p . p*
• p ! PP
p»* ••
• •• p
•p*
p • PA
(0-03)
II UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1982
COVER DEPTH 3'-2"
BOTTOM OF TANK IV-2"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE B'-0HJi3Z'-On
12 SUPER UNLEADED
SPEC. SAME
AS UNLEADED
13 REGULAR
SPEC. SAME
AS UNLEADED
i
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
San Diego Station 3
150
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 4
Sample
301-02
SG1-06
301-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SO 3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
304-06
304-10
303-06
Sample
S01-02
301-06
SG1-10
302-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
5G3-06
363-10
SG4-02
SO4-06
SG4-10
SGS-06
Methane
C1~C5
(as Methane)
0.20
0.40
3.00
420000.00
4800.00
7000.00
<0.06
<0.06
0.09
94000.00
170.00
14000.00
2.00
Methane
VC3
(as Methane)
0
1
3
638400
7296
10640
0
0
0
143099
259
21313
3
Bencene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<90.00
<9.00
<0.90
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<82.00
<8.00
<8.00
<0.04
Bensene
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
0
0
13
1
1
0
Toluene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
5200.00
260.00
750.00
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
17000.00
740.00
610.00
<0.04
( ppmv |
Toluene
0
0
0
1375
69
198
0
0
0
4501
196
162
0
Cthylbencene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Ethylbencene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xylenes
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
310.00
42.00
330.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
1800.00
1300.00
170.00
4.00
Xylenes
0
0
0
71
10
76
0
0
0
414
299
39
1
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatieg )
<0 . 10
<0 . 10
<0 .10
23000.00
780.00
1900.00
<0 .04
<0.04
<0 . 70
110000.00
2400.00
2300.00
7.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
0
0
0
6037
203
482
0
0
0
28737
582
592
2
Concentrations in pg/L rapresant tha naan values of threa GC/FID analyses par sample
Concentrations at or below detection limits are noted with a less than symbol.
Concentrations in ppav ara calculated as discussed in Section «. and rounded to tha nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as caro.
151
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 4
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(aa Methane)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbencene
Xylan*8
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass light
aliphaties)
Dapth - 02 Feat
501-02
S62-02
503-02
504-02
Averages
Daptri - 06 Peat
S01-06
502-06
503-06
SG4-06
565-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Feat
S01-10
SO2-10
SG3-10
304-10
Averages
0.20
420000.00
<0.06
94000.00
128300.06
0.40
4800.00
<0.06
170.00
2.00
994.00
3.00
7000.00
0.09
14000.00
5250.77
<0.10
<90.00
<0.04
<82.00
21.52
<0.10
<9.00
<0.04
<8.00
<0.04
1.72
(0.10
<0.90
<0.04
<8.00
1.13
<0.10
5200.00
<0.04
17000.00
5550.02
<0.10
260.00
<0.04
740.00
<0.04
200.02
<0.10
750.00
<0.04
610.00
340.02
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
310.00
0.06
1600.00
527.52
<0.10
42.00
<0.06
1300.00
4.00
269.22
(0.10
330.00
0.06
170.00
125.02
<0.10
23000.00
(0.04
110000.00
33250.02
<0.10
780.00
<0.04
2400.00
7.00
637.41
<0.10
1900.00
0.70
2300.00
1050.19
Concentrations at detection limits were approxinated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations tier* used in computing the averages.
152
-------
SAND
-
:•*;•'• ;• ;;*'.'•.'-,•;":'; '.•.;.•••
'. '•":'> !".•':*••:•• '*' !vxV''
•'**,''.'.'.'•''•*'.*• ••'.' • •''
W$&$-
11
o
©
©
o
12
SG5S
..-•:--" •-. (7).
SG-3
n ?i\
V;:;:(7Y.;.
!££$£}
*?-'.'-i:'--': •'•':'''•.'
•l!^x|:;?f
13
O
Q
O
O
14
1
'&• • SG- 1 %$&%::$$:•. ;•;&
5G-4
-105-1 -i\
JOCJJl
. ; * SG-2
A:;<8560)
;S:;S^Si^^
i' ^SSi^v^
II UNLEADED
12 SUPER UNLEADED
13 UNLEADED
14 REGULAR
SPECS TYPICAL OF ALL TANKS
INSTALLED 1965
COVER DEPTH 4'-9"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12'-9"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE e'-O'-
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
San Diego Station 4
153
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station S
(j/g/M
Sample
SG1-02
SO1-06
S01-10
SG2-02
302-06
S92-10
501-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
Sample.
901-02
301-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
302-06
S02-10
SG3-02
303-06
303-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
S04-10
Methane
C1-C5
-------
SOIL GAS DATA,
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 5
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total
Hydrocarbons
(leas light
aliphatiesl
Depth - 02 Feet
SG1-02
SG2-02
S03-02
SG4-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Feet
301-06
SG2-06
SG3-06
304-06
Averages
Depth - 10 feet
SG1-10
302-10
SG3-10
SG4-10
Averages
5.00
16.00
12.00
21.00
13.50
2400.00
4300.00
1200.00
9000.00
4225.00
45000.00
28000.00
40000.00
55000.00
42000.00
<0.04
<0.04
(0.04
<0.04
0.02
<0.40
<0.90
<0.90
<0.90
0.39
<9.00
<86.00
<8S.OO
<9.00
23.75
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
110.00
420.00
160.00
310.00
250.00
2200.00
2100.00
2600.00
360.00
1815.00
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
(0.10
(0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
(0.10
<0.10
(0.10
(0.10
0.05
(0.04
(0.04
(0.04
(0.04
0.02
5.00
31.00
4.00
9.00
12.25
950.00
1600.00
490.00
160.00
BOO.00
(0.04
0.30
(0 04
(0.04
0.09
330.00
1200.00
440.00
960.00
732.50
6000.00
7700.00
7100.00
4200.00
6250.00
Concentrations at detection Units were approximated by dividing the detection Unit by 2.
The approxinations were used in conputing the averages.
155
-------
•'•'•• !\%"I:I"I!/"I»/*I %"I!i"IsI""!I"I:I"I*/*":"""!"'*"!"t •*!*"" I*"*!**
'•':•: &t:'::-:K'^
'• • «*.". 1 ' " ' ' * " *"
.. ; .
*.• ••
. ; .. «
• •• .'
.. j .
...*.,
• ; .. <
.•...•
.. j .
:••..*«
•.•//.•
•• •
•«• ••
• ! •• i
• •• ••
•• • •
••• ••
. ; •• ;
•*•_•"
•• • •
• •• •«
• • •• j
•••_••
•• ? «i
• •*•
I •• I
•••.••
•« ; .
••• ••
i ; •• ;
• • _ •
•• I •
*.• •.
• •
•••,»•
** • *
••'..••
• * •
«••_••
•• * •'
:••„.*•
>.•„•••
© O » D O
*•*.«*•"•-"•*..*•*.."• *.V • *.V • •.".* • •.*„• • *.V • *.V • •.*.* • "A* • *.V • *.".• • *.*.• • v*.
0 O « D O
• • m •'•» I •• - •• m 99 m 99 m 99 m •• ~ 99 "~ •• ~ •• ~ 99 99 ~ 09 99 C •• I ••
• -••_• _•*•-••*••-••-•*•_•*•_•*•-•*•_•*•-•*#_•*•-•*•_•••-••••_•••-•
J •• I J •• T •• I •• I •• I •• J •• J •• J •• T •• Z •• J •• i •• J •• T •• • I •• I
••-•§"• •"•-•'•-•'•-••-•^•-•"•-•"••"g «w« *"• ••-••_««^« •"• _• •
• • I »4
•:'«:
• *• • *
• • * »<
•_•*•_
• •
•••.••
.. • .1
••• ••
. ; .. j
•*•_•*
•• ! •<
• • •
*S •• I
.•«.«•
•• • i
••• ••
» ; •• j
••••••
• • •
•*• •*•
• • * ••
••••••
• J •• J
© o n no %&
*• * ••
••••.•
• • •• •
• ••-•*!
• • • ••
'•••*••
, ••"S •• i •• ; ••;••;••;••;••;••:«•;••;••;••:••;••: •• ; ••
••••••••»•••••••«••.••••*•••••.•••.•••.•••«•••«•••«••• •.•••.!
••;••!•• ! •• j •• ; ••;••;«•?•• • .. j .• • •• • •••••••••••• 2 ••!
• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••.••.••.•*•.•*•.•,••.•«
• ••!•• S •• I ••••••••!•• S •••••••• S ••!••!••!••! •• I < •• S ••
1 •.•*£-• ••••••••••.••.••.••.•••.•••_•••«•••.•••.•••.••••.•••.«
•• . v^x.»* S •• I •• z •• s •• £ •• s •• i •» i »• i •» ? »•;«•••« • ••»!•• i
• • *I II !••••• •••••••••••••.•••••.••.••.••.••.• •.•!••«• •
j •• i n j* ••!•• s ••{•• s •• f •••••••••••••••••••••••• ^ •••••
• ••^w* •»••••••••«••.•••••.•*•.•*•.•••.•*• •*• •*• ••••-••.<
•• ?••*•• !••;•• j ••!••;••;•• t ••!•• s •• s •••••! ••!••• s •• I
•••"•••"•. •'•-•"••••••'! •• ! •. n
• ;••;••••••••;«•;«•«.«••,
"« V • *. V • % V • *. ." • *. V • ". V ' *. • .* ' '• •
• ;•«;.
• •••••.
*•*?..
••«*..
• ;«•;•
.• • .• •
.. ; •.
••• ...
.;..;.
• •••••i
• • I ••
••••••
•!••!•
_•••-«••
!•••••
••••«•
*.5.".!.*
:"«:%'
*•**•'
„•••-•••.
.••:.•• f«/;*./j S6-4 • '•*:"••*:*•
.•••._•••. .•*•.•* /I-«AA\ .•••-•••,
#— • A ~ •*** • " • • *
• .••."I".!l".!l".*I"I*I"!
..•..? ••••.»•.••.•.
«•••••«••••••••••«.
!••!••!••!•• t ••!<•
••.•••,••»,•••,••«,«••,•'
•I**!*!**! •!"! •!"! •!••!•!••!
•• S •• t •• A ** • •• • »* t *
• •••••»•• ••••••»••
i •• r •• T •• T ••:••*••
••-•"•.•••-•••-•••-•••.•
• • i ••*••"••*••**•••
• *• • '• I '• I •• I •• I •• I •• I ••
"•»•"•.»••-• ••^•••_*"« _•••_•••.•
• •!•••••••••••' ••'••'•••
-••-•»*••-»•»••-•»-•••••
• ••• «t •••*•»•••••• * •• * ••
• •• — vv •».•••••••••••••
•• • • ^G*3 !••!••!••!*•!
• • JU— w ,»^ t«t t»a t»% t»€
I •* /9C1 ll*» .••-••••• I ••
••_• l£9lJ/ ••••••••••••••
• •;••.»•.••? ••?••? ••?*•!
_••_•••-•*•_•••_•*•-•*•_»*•_•*•
••*•*•••••»*•»***•••••••
•••••••*••.•••••. •••••••
• •«••.••!••*••*••*••*••?
••••••-•*•••*•. •••-•••-•*•.•*•
s •• i •• i •• s •• r «• i •• z •• r •*
••_•"•.•••-•••-•*•-•••_•••.•••.•
••••••••'••'•••••'••'*••
-•*«••.••-•*• .»*•_•*•_••-••
'•••••'••'••'•••••'••It*
••_•••-»*•-••»-•"»-•*•_»••_•••-•
• • ! •• r ••!••. •• I •• S •• I •• I
_•••-•"§_•*•_•••-•••-•••-•*•_»*•
r •• T *•*••"•*••• T •• i •• T ••
••-•*»_•*•»•••_•••_•••-•*•_•*•_•
• • T •• z •• ! •• " •• * •• T •• ! •• *
-•"•_•*•_•*•_•••_•*•_•*•-•*•-•*•
" •• J ••!••! •* !••••• I •• I ••
**-•*•-•••.•*•_•*•_•*•_•*•»•*•_•
»•"••*»•*••*••*••*••*••*
>-•"•-•••.•••-•••.*••-•••_•••-•"•
•••'•••••'••'••'•a =••!••
•.•*•»•*•_•*•.•*•_•*•.••-••_•
• •'••'*•'••'••••*•••*•••
••••••••••••••••••••••.•*•«•*•.•*•.•*•.•••_•••-•••_•••.•,•••.••.•"•.•"•.•••.•••.•••.•••.••••••'•
j •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •-•--• *••••• >• • ^ »• s ••;••;•• i «•;.. j .**«•*•.!••
•••••••••••••••••••»••«••.••.• ^R— 9 •••«.•••.••••.••.••.••.••.••.••.••.••.••.•
•-•*•••••«•••••.••.•*.••.••(.• ., jo-c v .. • •• • .. "• • •• j •• ; •• ; •• j •• ; ••••••••••••
*cp 1 •••••••••••••••.••.•••.»••. /<>ne^\ •••.•••.••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
db— i !••!••!••••••••!••!••!••! (2967) ••!••!••!<•••••••>!••••••••!••!•••••••*
«•• .•»•••••••••••••.••.••«••.•*..' •-•••-•••-••••.•••.•••.•••.•••.«•.••.••.••.••»•
/9iiQi«* !••!••£••!••!••!••!••!••!••! •• i •« ; •• i .. • ;••;••?••;»•;••;.•?••?••!«•?
\C1 ^/-•••-•••-•••.•••-••» •••••••••«•,•,•,.•••«•.,•• %•••••!
; *• ; •• S •• 5 •• I •• I •• S •• S •• I •• ! •• I •• I •• . •• I •• I •• IV •• S ••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••.••«••.•*•.•••••••'
PEAGRAVEL-^
11 SUPER UNLEADED 12 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1983 INSTALLED 1983
COVER DEPTH 4'-1" COVER DEPTH 4'-l"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12 '-1" BOTTOM OF TANK 121-!"
TANK TYPE FRP TANK TYPE FPR
"P- f°°° GAL. - CAP.8000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x 20'-6" SIZE 8'-0"x26l-0"
San Diego Station 5
156
ifc»'».«w«fc«w«fc«*».«*«. •••-•••.«••
*•• • ••••••••••• • •• I •• j ••
i*»m»*»-«*«a«*«-i*«fc»*»^*«fc»»»»
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1983 „
COVER DEPTH 4'-l"
BOTTOM OF -TANK 12'-1"
TANK TYPE FRPit
CAP. 10.-000 GAL.
SIZE B'-O'^ST-S"
^^
NOT TO SCALE
-------
SOIL SAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 6
Ij/g/L)
Sample
SG1-02
501-06
SG1-10
502-02
SG2-06
502-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
303-10
504-02
504-06
304-08
505-02
Sample;
SG1-02
501-06
501-10
502-02
SG2-06
502-10
503-02
503-06
503-10
504-02
504-06
304-08
S05-02
Kethane
C1-C5
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by sample Number)
San Diego
Station 6
Sample
Nathan*
VC5
(as Methane)
Benzene
Depth - 02 Feet
SG1-02
S02-02
S03-02
S04-02
S05-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Feet
301-06
302-06
S03-06
SO4-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Feet
SQ1-10
302-10
303-10
304-08
Averages
00
00
00
00
1100.00
225.00
140.0
3900.00
150.00
18.00
1052.00
10000.00
33000.00
25000.00
190.00
17047.50
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.40
0.06
<0.80
<8.00
<0.80
<0.04
1.21
<83.00
<41.00
<83.00
<0.80
Toluene
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
25.00
5.02
260.00
1300.00
110.00
2.00
418.00
9100.:
15000.00
23000.00
95.00
25.98 11798.75
Ethylbencene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
Xylenes
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
<0.40
0.06
18.00
530.00
6.00
0.20
138.55
2ir- oo
1000* 00
10000.00
9.00
5527.25
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
45.00
140.00
37.01
1000.00
5100.00
480.00
10.00
1647.50
22000.00
52000.00
58000.00
400.00
33100.00
Concentrations at detection Units were approximated by dividing the detection Unit by 2
The approxinations were used in computing the averages.
158
-------
O D © ©
:'••:
•..•-•:
•••^^^
13
O D
©
^vV^vVv/»V.'V'.v*.:( 152) 'A-
PEAGRAVEL
II SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1983
COVER DEPTH S'-ll"
BOTTOH OF TANK 11'-IT1
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x20'-6 1/2"
12 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1983
COVER DEPTH 3'-11"
BOTTOM OF TANK 11'-11"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 8000 GAL.
SIZE B'-Q"x26'-0"
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1983
COVER DEPTH 3'-IV
BOTTOM OF TANK IT-11"
TANK TYPE FRP
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE s'-o-xsr-e 1/2"
San Diego Station 6
159
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Nunber)
San Diego
Station 7
(j/g/L)
Sample
SOl-02
301-06
501-10
302-02
302-06
301-10
503-02
303-06
503-10
504-02
S04-06
304-10
305-02
305-06
505-10
Sample
301-02
501-06
301-10
302-02
502-06
302-10
503-02
303-06
303-10
504-02
304-06
304-10
305-02
305-06
505-10
Methane
C1~C5
(as Methane)
1500.00
76000.00
140000.00
62000.00
71000.00
130000.00
120000.00
250000.00
270000.00
40000.00
170000.00
210000.00
110000.00
250000.00
390000.00
Methane
C1~C5
(as Hethane)
2275
115063
211958
93667
107493
198299
176728
368183
397637
58799
250832
309273
161395
366807
512219
Benzene
(11.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(90.00
(49.00
(45.00
(45.00
(45.00
(90.00
(90.00
Beniene
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
7
7
7
7
14
14
Toluene
1100.00
9000.00
8400.00
17000.00
19000.00
31000 00
6900.00
15000.00
13000.00
630.00
4600.00
7100.00
4300.00
20000.00
23000.00
( ppmv )
Toluene
290
1370
2212
4476
5003
S224
1767
3842
3330
161
1180
1819
1097
5103
5869
Ethylbeneene
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
(0.10
Ethylbenzene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xylenes
(15.00
520.00
(120.00
7800.00
8800.00
8400.00
440.00
2000.00
1100.00
(62.00
(62.00
220.00
360.00
3300.00
4000.00
Xylenes
,
119
14
1783
2011
1934
98
445
245
7
7
49
124
731
886
Total
Hydrocarbons
(leaa light
aliphaticsl
4500.00
98000.00
120000.00
120000.00
130000.00
210000.00
34000.00
70000.00
64000.00
5100.00
28000.00
40000.00
26000.00
78000.00
94000.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass light
aliphatics)
1186
25616
31563
30288
32803
54144
8639
17651
16223
1296
7178
10204
6534
19532
23518
Concentrations in wq/L represent th* n*an valuta of three GC/FID analyses per sample
Concentrations at or below detection limits are noted with a less than symbol.
Concentrations in ppnv are calculated as discussed in S«cti?n fi, and rounded to the nearest
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
limit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
160
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 7
(C9/L)
Sample
Methane
(as Methane)
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
Bencene Toluene Ethylbeneene Xylenei aliphaties)
Depth - 02 feet
SG1-02
502-02
S03-02
304-02
S65-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Feet
SG1-06
302-06
303-06
304-06
S05-06
Averagea
Depth - 10 feet
501-10
S02-10
303-10
304-10
305-10
Averages
1500.00
62000.00
120000.00
40000.00
110000.00
66700.00
76000.00
71000.00
250000.00
170000.00
250000.00
163400.00
140000.00
130000.00
270000.00
210000.00
390000.00
228000.00
<90.00
00.00
<45.00
<45.00
28.10
<90.00
<90.00
00.00
<45.00
<90.00
<90.00
00.00
<90.00
<4S.OO
OO.OO
1100.00
17000.00
6900.00
630.00
4300.00
5986.00
9000.00
1900.00
15000.00
4600.00
20000.00
40.50 13520.00
8400.00
31000.00
13000.00
7100.00
23000.00
40.50 16500.00
<0.10
(0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
-------
SAND
D
13
©
• • i • * T • • T • • " ™ •*" «~* * • * ' * * TT~* ~*~ •I • *•• •«• *•* ••* ••* w • • * *••••• • • * • *
r/> r •.••.• •••••!•• I ••!••!••!••!••!••!••!••!•• t ••!••!••!••!••
• SG—5' * •• ••••••••••»•••••.•• ••.••.•••.•••.•••-•••.•••.•••.•••.•••-•••.•••
•"• •*•*• • * •. ;••:•• !••!••!•• 1««I»»»«I««"««»»"*»«*"»*«»««>«
• rcennni* S ••!•••••••••••.••••••••••*.•• • • • • • • ••«.••• ••• ••• • • •
. JDDPOO^**.**^"^ *.**.i.**.i.**. ;.".;,••. r-*•!**. r _••_ * ** r**i **i *• i *** *** **. •• i
.•.".•.".•.••.•.•T •••••••••• •'• •••«••-•- ; /. •
.. ; ..
':•..••
D
12
©
II SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1972
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK U'-O"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE S'-O'
§2 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1965
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK 1V-0"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 GAL.
SIZE B'-O-iZV-lO"
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1965
COVER DEPTH 3'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK H'-O"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE S'-
San Diego Station 7
162
NOT TO SCALE
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 8
I
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San Diego
Station 8
Sample
Methane
C1-C3
(as Methane)
Beneene Toluene Ethylbeneene
Xylanea
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
Depth - 02 Peet
301-02
S02-02
303-02
304-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Peet
S01-06
302-06
303-06
304-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Peet
S61-10
302-10
303-10
304-10
Averages
(0.10
4100.00
S400.00
7900.00
5100.01
11000.00
10000.00
12000.00
13000.00
11900.00
21000.00
18000.00
17000.00
21000.00
19250.00
<0.90
<46.00
<46.00
<46.00
17.36
<46.00
<46.00
<91.00
<46.00
28.62
<91.00
<91.00
01.00
(46.00
710.00
2900.00
3900.00
5200.00
3177.50
5900.00
9400.00
7000.00
12000.00
8575.00
11000.00
19000.00
19000.00
22000.00
39.88 17750.00
<0.10
(0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
100.00
1600.00
3200.00
4000.00
2225.00
3500.00
5700.00
4200.00
5700.00
4775.00
5400.00
8600.00
6500.00
8300.0
7200.00
8500.00
22000.00
28000.00
32000.00
22625.00
55000.00
70000.00
54000.00
67000.00
61500.00
71000.00
110000.00
104000.00
120000.00
101250.00
Concentrations at detection Units were approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2,
The approximation* were) used in computing the averages.
164
-------
CONCRETE
COVER-?
l^ltiMISf il W^rt^'-' ;i?v
"•'•'"•'• '*'••'*.• :; '';':'•';-'!•*
.:SG-2 •
{67333$
..: ••.•.y.vV.'-v,1-;! •*'';:;•:
:' TO :|
PUMP .
. ISLAND
L_J
D
LJ
12
VI)
D
CO
• : ..-. .;-,'- ,;;•.- ••-i ..--"...•.••••:-..• -'•;..-••. .."-•- • . . -,^-, .l-.-'i". .. .-.'. -•.-:.•.
.•..- •-•:.:. '-•.•••'•'-I • .•' \ '.-,-•. .'•'.,•. •;.•
D
SG-3 ©
13
CO
D
SG-4 ^
(73000) \X)
14
Si
:'&
,:V'.:>V. .'*•.•':'•'•'' '•''"••.''•'''•'•' • :"•'• :'., '.;-' -V" :- -'•'•-" - "''.'-:';.'•''-'•':' ''-V-'^- •''-•"•'" '•';.'•' -iv/X-'--1:"'/--" •' .'•*
SPECS TYPICAL OF 4 TANKS
INSTALLED 1965
COVER DEPTH 4'-0"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12'-0"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x16'-10"
FUEL TYPE NOT KNOWN
1
SAND
BACKFILL
• ••!•'•'••;.. ^^
•rr-., • ... -^ wtwii
:••-': '.'• - __^^
(CLOSED 6 TO 12 MONTHS)
San Diego Station 8
165
-------
SOIL GAS DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Nunbarl
San Diego
Station 9
(vg/L)
Sample
SO1-02
501-06
SQ2-02
SO 2 -06
502-10
503-02
S03-06
503-10
SQ4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
509-02
303-06
505-10
Sanpl*
SG1-02
SG1-06
S02-02
302-06
302-10
S03-02
S03-06
SO3-10
504-02
304-06
S04-10
909-02
SOS-06
S05-10
Methane
C1-C5
(as Methane)
130000.00
120000.00
260000.00
280000.00
230000.00
91000.00
110000.00
190000.00
83000.00
130000.00
230000.00
81000.00
100000.00
100000.00
Methane
C1-C9
(as Methane)
193663
160139
390293
419927
343964
137119
164814
22*968
127163
19880S
393026
123419
192364
191801
Benzene
08.00
08.00
<98.00
<98.00
<96.00
08.00
08.00
O8.00
O8.00
08.00
08.00
08.00
08.00
oe.oo
Benzene
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
15
Toluana
9200.00
8800.00
12000.00
32000.00
26000.00
12000.00
15000.00
18000.00
6600.00
11000.00
22000.00
6700.00
7200.00
9900.00
< ppmv )
Toluana
2384
2297
3133
8338
6162
3145
3909
4778
1799
2926
9873
1779
1908
2508
Ethylbencene
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
Ethylbantana
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Xylanaa
1700.00
1800.00
1300.00
9900.00
4900.00
2400.00
9800.00
3200.00
840.00
4400.00
8200.00
200.00
260.00
1300.00
Xylanaa
382
408
299
1334
1016
546
1312
737
194
1016
1900
46
60
298
Total
Hydrocarbons
(lass light
aliphatics)
42000.00
41000.00
94000.00
110000.00
89000.00
46000.00
98000.00
71000.00
28000.00
45000.00
86000.00
28000.00
35000.00
39000.00
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphaties)
10660
10469
13916
28079
22698
11790
14559
18474
7390
11919
2213«
7390
9231
10133
Concantrations in yg/L raprasant tha naan valuas of three GC/FID analyses per sample.
Concentrations at or below detection limits are noted with a loss than symbol.
Concentrations in ppmv are calculated as discussad in Section 6, and rounded to the near-st
whole number. Concentrations at detection limits were approximated by dividing the detection
Unit value by 2. This procedure resulted in some values being reported as zero.
166
-------
SOIL G&S DATA
(Data Arranged by Sample Number)
San 01*90
Station 9
(j/g/L)
Sample
Methane
C1-C5
(•s Methane)
Bensene
Toluene ethylbencene
Xylenea
Total
Hydrocarbons
(less light
aliphatics)
Depth - 02 feet
$01-02
502-02
503-02
S04-02
505-02
Averages
Depth - 06 Feet
501-06
302-06
S03-0«
S04-06
503-06
Averages
Depth - 10 Feet
SG2-10
303-10
304-10
SOS-10
Averages
130000.00
260000.00
91000.
83000.
.00
.00
81000.00
129000.00
120000.00
280000.00
110000.00
130000.00
100000.00
148000.00
230000.00
150000.00
230000.00
100000.00
177900.00
(98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
49.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
<98.00
9200.00
12000.00
12000.00
6600.00
6700.00
9300.00
8800.00
32000.00
15000.00
11000.00
7200.00
49.00 14800.00
26000.00
18000.00
22000.00
9500.00
49.00 18875.00
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.03
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.05
1700.00
1300.00
2400.00
840.00
200.00
1288.00
1800.00
5900.00
5800.00
4400.00
260.00
3632.00
4500.00
3200.00
8200.00
1300.00
4300.00
42000.00
54000.00
46000.00
28000.00
28000.00
39600.00
41000.00
110000.00
58000.00
45000.00
35000.00
57800.00
89000.00
71000.00
86000.00
39000.00
71250.00
Concentrations at detection limits vere approximated by dividing the detection limit by 2.
The approximations were used in computing the averages.
167
-------
SAND
BACKFILL
CONCRETE COVER
'SG-5 (34000)
II
o ©
•• SG-4
(53000)
•D
0
SG-1
(41500)
13
O ©
• SG-2' $
M43331;
II SUPER UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1967
COVER DEPTH 4'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12'-10"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 6000 GAL.
SIZE S'-
12 REGULAR
INSTALLED 1967
COVER DEPTH 4'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12'-10"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 8000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x21'-10"
13 UNLEADED
INSTALLED 1967
COVER DEPTH 4'-10"
BOTTOM OF TANK 12'-10"
TANK TYPE STEEL
CAP. 10.000 GAL.
SIZE 8'-0"x27'-4"
San Diego Station 9
168
-------
a\
Austin Station 6
(All concentration values in */q/Ll
Station
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
rvltC
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
AU6
Saapl*
Number
SG-01
SG-01
SG-02
SG-02
SG-03
SG-03
SG-04
SG-04
SG-05
SG-05
SG-01
SG-OJ
SO- 02
SG-02
SG-05
SG-OS
SG-04
SG-01
SG-02
SG-05
SG-04
SG-04
SG-OS
SG-02
SG-03
D*ptb
(ft)
2.
6.
6.
2.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
2.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
Saapla
Oat*
10/27/87
10/27/67
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/27/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/28/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/29/87
10/10/87
10/30/87
10/30/87
10/30/87
SMpl*
TIB*
8:54:00
9:02:00
9:15:00
9:40:00
10:12:00
10:38:00
11:14:00
11:38:00
12:49:00
13:13:00
13:48:00
14:17:00
14:50:00
15:31:00
16:20:00
16:50:00
18:03:00
16:30:00
17:07:00
17:32:00
17:53:00
11:48:00
12:20:00
12:45:00
13:15:00
Light
Aliphatics
-------
APPENDIX D
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR REPORTING METHODS EVALUATION
1) Calculation of BTEX to total hydrocarbon ratio (total
hydrocarbon calculated as benzene)
2) Calculation of percent difference between total hydrocarbons as
benzene and total hydrocarbons as BTEX
3) Calculation of BTEX to total hydrocarbon ratio (total
hydrocarbons calculated using an average RF as BTEX)
4) Tabular data used to generate Figure 2
5) Chromatograms for selected sites
6) Discussion of compressibility factor.
170
-------
CALCULATION OP BTEX TO TOTAL HYDROCARBON RATIO
(Total Hydrocarbons Calculated as Benzene)
Station
AU1
AU1
AIJ1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU1
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
Sample Number
SG1-02
SG1A-06
SG1A-09
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
Sum of
BTEX
14845.00
20.50
104.00
105.50
62.10
27.91
445.50
285.50
103.50
258.50
136.00
51.50
724.50
614.50
7874.50
12160.00
24260.00
25360.00
2370.00
7880.00
6680.00
48.00
19860.00
27560.00
13280.00
30560.00
26920.00
25760.00
35360.00
53920.00
0.
0.
,13
.25
1588.50
0.03
1.70
2386.47
27.96
1020.50
4340.50
0.10
2.17
3810.50
0.13
0.30
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
16000.00
160.00
120.00
84.00
61.00
21.00
440.00
350.00
40.00
380.00
240.00
120.00
620.00
600.00
9500.00
10000.00
19000.00
20000.00
2100.00
7100.00
6000.00
47.00
15000.00
23000.00
13000.00
26000.00
24000.00
22000.00
28000.00
42000.00
0.10
0.40
1600.00
0.09
2.00
2300.00
0.09
1000.00
4400.00
0.04
2.00
3900.00
0.10
1.00
0.93
0.13
0.87
1.26
1.02
1.33
1.01
0.82
2.59
0.68
0.57
0.43
1.17
1.02
0.83
1.22
1.28
1.27
1.13
1.11
1.11
1.02
1.32
1.20
1.02
1.18
1.12
1.17
1.26
1.28
1.30
0.62
0.99
0.33
0.85
1.04
310.67
1 . 02
(1 00
2.5"
I.(i9
0.98
1.30
U.30
(Continued)
171
-------
Station
AU3
AU5
AU5
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AUS
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
Sample Number
SG5-10
SGI-02
SG1-06
SGI-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG5-1.5
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
Sum of
BTEX
3994.50
17734.00
40490.00
25084.00
11234.00
9984.00
64800.00
45100.00
13984.00
912.00
0.10
99.00
0.73
99.00
4.65
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.07
238.00
828.00
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.10
0.09
0.01
2290.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
565.00
3595.00
35700.00
0.28
0.2R
0.28
0.28
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
3600.00
72000.00
2.4E5
1.E6
1.2E5
1.1E5
1500.00
7900.00
12000.00
50000.00
13861.00
35810.00
13186.00
46874.00
28000.00
0.04
0.08
4.00
0.03
0.80
3100.00
4300.00
0.04
0.03
0.06
2.00
0.03
1.00
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.04
9.00
0.04
0.20
2.00
41000.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
89000.00
1.1E5
1.4E5
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
1.11
0.25
0.17
0.03
0.09
0.09
43.20
5.71
1.17
0.02
7.21E-6
2.76E-3
5.54E-5
2.11E-3
1.66E-4
1.75
1.31
0.02
2.00
0.09
0.08
0.19
2.25
2.33
2.17
0.06
4.33
0.10
2.83
2.33
2.19
2.50
2.50
0.02
2.50
0.47
7.5E-3
0.06
2.79
2.79
2.79
6.35E-3
11.113
(i.26
4.07
4.07
4.07
4.07
(Continued)
172
-------
Station
NY1
NY1
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI1
Sample Number
SG4-06
SG4-09
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-05
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
Sum of
BTEX
135.50
105.50
0.08
0.08
0.08
515.00
434.50
37.45
0.08
0.08
0.24
0.08
0.04
13.50
565.50
810.50
45.00
560.50
1240.50
1245.50
3645.50
4260.50
67.00
1040.50
2690.50
0.08
0.08
1647.00
642.50
5399.00
0.02
2022.50
3892.00
2.94
572.50
0.08
4.89
0.94
19.45
53.95
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
329.95
276.**
18.95
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
1000.00
660.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
1600.00
810.00
83.00
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.03
0.10
850.00
21000.00
34000.00
1300.00
25000.00
34000.00
43000.00
49000.00
55000.00
20000.00
35000.00
46000.00
2.00
0.03
21000.00
5800.00
31000.00
0.20
40000.00
58000.00
12.00
6800.00
0.03
82.00
4.00
640.00
1400.00
12.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
370.00
280.00
21.00
0.14
0.16
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.32
0.54
0.45
2.67
2.67
1.20
2.67
0.40
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.08
3.35E-3
0.03
0.06
0.04
2.67
0.08
0.11
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.25
0.08
2.67
0.06
0.23
0.03
0.04
0.01
n.36
n.36
n. ?6
n.36
n.89
0.99
0.90
(Continued)
173
-------
Station
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
S02
Sample Number
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SGI-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
Sum of
BTEX
0.10
382.95
0.10
0.35
47.85
88.20
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.61
0.01
110.00
187.00
863.00
0.10
0.64
667.95
0.10
4.97
0.12
1799.75
2349.75
1.29
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
10
10
0
0
- 329.15
4589.50
8989.50
1311.50
9295.50
15795.50
694.00
5595.50
9395.50
10695.5"
4895.5U
0.08
920.00
0.08
0.90
190.00
220.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.00
430.00
320.00
1600.00
0.03
10.00
7800.00
0.30
20.00
11.00
16000.00
11000.00
190.00
42.00
0.60
780.00
13000.00
15000.00
10000.00
33000.00
27000.00
1800.00
18000.00
30000.00
32000.00
31000.00
1.31
0.42
1.31
0.39
0.25
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
1.02
0.01
0.26
0.58
0.54
3.33
0.06
0.09
0.35
0.25
0.01
0.11
0.21
6.79E-3
2.38E-3
0.17
0.42
0.35
0.60
0.13
n.2R
11.50
11.30
n.31
0.31
n.33
0.16
(Continued)
174
-------
Station
SD2
SD2
502
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
S04
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD5
SOS
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
-SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
Sample Number
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-06
SG1-02
SGI-06
SGI-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-08
Sum of
BTEX
15995.50
8795.50
10575.50
0.11
0.19
16.95
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.91
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
5464.95
297.45
1079.50
0.11
0.11
0.11
18758.95
2035.95
775.95
3.91
0.11
114.75
3145.45
0.11
450.50
3656.95
0.11
163.50
3046.95
0.11
318.50
515.45
0.11
277.55
11158.45
0.11
1825.95
24979.45
0.11
115.55
32958.45
0.11
2.13
103.55
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
63000.00
53000.00
64000.00
0.04
0.09
56.00
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.90
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
21000.00
710.00
1700.00
0.04
0.04
0.60
1.E5
2200.00
2100.00
6.00
0.04
330.00
6000.00
0.30
1200.00
7700.00
0.04
440.00
7100.00
0.04
960.00
4200.00
0.04
1000.00
22000.00
0.04
5100.00
52000.00
0.04
480.00
58000.00
45.00
10. UO
400.00
0.25
0.17
0.17
2.75
2.17
0.30
2.17
2.17
2.17
1,01
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
0.26
0.42
0.64
2.87
2.87
0.19
0.19
0.93
0.37
0.65
2.75
0.35
0.52
0.37
0.38
0.47
2.75
0.37
0.43
2.75
0.33
0.12
2.75
0.28
0.51
2.75
0.36
n.4R
2.75
M.24
(1.57
2.44E-.1
0.21
0.26
(Continued)
175
-------
Station
SD6
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SOS
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
NY5
Sample Number
SG5-02
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SGI-02
SG1-06
SGI-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG4-10
Sum of
BTEX
24.55
1086.95
9474.95
8294.95
24754.95
27754.95
39354.95
7294.95
]6954.95
14054.95
576.45
4546.45
7297.45
4837.45
23254.95
26954.95
809.50
9376.95
16354.45
4476.95
15076.95
27554.45
7076.95
11154.45
25454.45
9176.95
17676.95
30276.95
10850.95
10550.95
13250.95
37850.95
30450.95
14350.95
20750.95
21150.95
7390.95
15350.95
30150.95
6850.95
7410.95
10750.95
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
140.00
3600.00
78000.00
99000.00
92000.00
1.E5
1.7E5
27000.00
56000.00
51000.00
4100.00
22000.00
32000.00
21000.00
62000.00
75000.00
7400.00
48000.00
62000.00
19000.00
61000.00
97000.00
24000.00
47000.00
90000.00
28000.00
58000.00
1.E5
34000.00
33000.00
43000.00
86000.00
71000.00
37000.00
46000.00
57000.00
22000.00
36000.00
69000.00
22000.00
28000.00
31000.00
1.02E5
0.18
0.30
0.12
0.08
0.27
0.28
0.23
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.14
O.Z1
0.23
0.23
0.38
0.36
0.11
0.20
0.26
0.24
0.25
0.28
0.29
0.24
0.28
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.44
0.43
0.39
0.45
0.37
0.34
0.43
0.44
0.31
0.26
'•'.35
176
-------
CALCULATION OF PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
AS BENZENE AND TOTAL HYDROCARBONS AS BTEX
COMPARISONS OP TOTAL HYDROCARBONS CALCULATED FROM
AVERAGE RPS AND AS BENZENE
Station
AU7
AU7
RI4
AU5
AU5
RI3
AU5
AU5
SD6
CONN2
SD6
CONN2
SD3
SD5
CONN1
SD4
CONN2
SD6
SD5
SD5
CONN2
SD4
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD4
SD4
SD3
SD4
SD3
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI1
RI2
RI2
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI2
AU1
Sample Number
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG3-02
SG5-1.5
SG2-06
SG4-06
SG2-02
SGI-06
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG2-02
SG2-08
SGI-02
SGI-02
SG4-02
SG3-06
SG2-06
SG1-02
SG4-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG5-06
SG3-06
SG1-06
SGI-02
SG3-02
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG2-02
SG3-10
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG4-10
SG2-06
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG4-02
SG3-10
Old Values
New Values
13861.00
13186.00
0.30
50000.00
1.1E5
1.00
1.2E5
2.4E5
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.9n
0 . ?'.'
16.00
150.00
0.03
12000.00
30000.00
0.30
36000.00
1.1E5
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
n.50
0.50
40.00
26.00
Percent
Difference
-99.88
-98.86
-90.00
-76.00
-72.73
-70.00
-70.00
-54.17
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-50.00
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-44.44
-66.46
-66.6-i
-UU. >ii*
-64.64
-66.66
-64.66
-35.00
(Continued)
177
-------
Station
NY2
CONN1
NY2
NY2
NY5
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY6
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
CONN1
AU3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
SD1
SD1
SOI
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD6
NY6
SD5
SD6
SD1
SD6
SD6
SD5
SD5
NY5
Sample Number
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG3-02
SGI-06
SG1-06
SG4-10
SG1-10
SG1-02
SG1-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG1-06
SGI-02
SG1-10
SG3-10
SG3-02
SG1-10
SG4-02
SG2-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG1-10
SG1-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG2-10
SG3-06
SG3-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG2-06
SG4-02
SGI-06
SG5-06
SG5-02
SG2-02
SG3-10
SG4-08
SG2-02
SGI-06
SG2-06
SG3-06
SG2-06
SG3-02
Old Values
Nev Values
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
4.00
0.04
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
4300.00
3100.00
0.80
13000.00
15000.00
33000.00
190.00
780.00
10000.00
42.00
27000.00
140.00
4.00
7100.00
400.00
0.60
1000.00
5100.00
440. on
1200.™
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
3.00
0.03
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
3700.00
2700.00
0.70
12000.00
14000.00
31000.00
180.00
740.00
9500.00
40.00
26000.00
140.00
4.00
7100.00
400.00
0.60
LQiXI.OO
5100.00
440.0Q
1200.00
0.20
Percent
Difference
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-33.33
-28.57
-28.57
-28.57
-28.57
-28.57
-28.57
-28.57
-25.00
-25.00
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-16.67
-1J.95
-12.90
-12.50
-7.69
-6.67
-6.06
-5.26
-5.13
-5.00
-4.76
-3.70
0.00
0.00
O.nn
o. i M i
it. in i
i i . i ii i
O.iid
0. f 10
u. cm
o.oo
(Continued)
178
-------
Station
AU3
NY2
SD6
SD6
S06
SD5
SD6
SD6
CONN2
CONN2
SD5
SD5
SD5
SD6
CONN2
SD5
SD5
AU3
AU3
NY6
NY5
NY6
NY5
SD4
NY6
SD4
SD4
NY6
SD4
SD4
NY5
AU5
NY5
NY5
SD3
AU3
AU3
SD3
SD4
808
SD8
AU7
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
Sample Number
SG5-06
SG5-02
SG3-10
SG2-10
SG4-06
SG2-02
SG1-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG4-06
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG3-06
SGI-02
SG2-10
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG5-02
SG2-10
SG4-10
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG4-10
SG1-06
SG2-06
SG4-02
SG4-02
SG1-10
SG5-05
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG5-02
SG2-10
SG2-10
SG4-02
SG4-02
SG1-10
SG1-06
SG2-06
SG1-02
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG3-10
Old Values
1.00
0.10
58000.00
52000.00
10.00
0.30
22000.00
45.00
0.02
2.00
960.00
330.00
6000.00
480.00
1.00
7700.00
4200.00
0.10
0.10
1400.00
1.02E5
12.00
12.00
2200.00
640.00
21000.00
2100.00
82.00
710.00
1.E5
40000.00
1.E6
6800.00
58000.00
56.00
0.09
0.09
0.90
1700.00
97000.00
28000.00
28000.00
62000.00
48000.00
61000.00
7400.00
47000.00
58000.00
90000.00
New Values
1.00
0.10
58000.00
52000.00
10.00
0.30
22000.00
45.00
0.02
2.00
960.00
330.00
6000.00
480.00
1.00
7700.00
4200.00
0.10
0.10
1500.00
1.1E5
13.00
13.00
2400.00
700.00
23000.00
2300.00
90.00
780.00
1.1E5
44000.00
1.1E6
7500.00
64000.00
62.00
0.10
0.10
1.00
1900.00
1.1E5
32000.00
32000.00
71000.00
55000.00
70000.00
8500.00
? 4 nnn.no
ft 7000.00
1.04E5
Percent
Difference
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.14
7.84
8.33
8.33
9.09
9.38
9.52
9.52
9.76
9.86
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.29
10.34
10.71
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.76
13.40
14.29
14.2"
14.52
14.5R
14. J5
14.86
14.8<»
15.52
15.56
(Continued)
179
-------
Station
SD8
SD4
SD8
SD4
AU7
AU7
SD2
SD2
CONN2
SD8
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD7
SD2
SD2
NY4
SD9
NY4
NY4
SD7
NY4
NY5
SD7
NY4
NY5
SD9
SD9
SD7
NY4
SD9
SD9
CONN1
AU3
SD9
SD7
SD7
SD7
NY4
SD9
RI2
RI2
SD7
SD9
NY4
SD7
SD9
NY4
Sample Number
SG2-02
SG3-10
SG3-02
SG5-06
SG2-06
SG3-06
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG5-06
SG4-10
SG2-02
Sg4-06
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG1-10
SGI-06
SG1-02
SG2-02
SGI-02
SG1-10
SG2-10
SG2-10
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG5-02
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG1-06
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-10
SG1-06
SGI-06
SG5-06
SG3-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SGI-02
SG1-10
SG5-10
SG2-10
SG3-10
SG3-10
SG2-02
SG3-02
Old Values
New Values
19000.00
0.60
24000.00
6.00
35810.00
46874.00
32000.00
31000.00
41000.00
1.E5
30000.00
64000.00
63000.00
53000.00
99000.00
18000.00
1800.00
1300.00
34000.00
34000.00
34000.00
1.7E5
21000.00
21000.00
21000.00
25000.00
5800.00
33000.00
37000.00
4100.00
49000.00
57000.00
69000.00
0.08
0.40
28000.00
56000.00
32000.00
3600.00
20000.00
36000.00
0.08
0.08
75000.00
71000.00
55000.00
51000.00
43000.0H
43000.00
22000.00
0.70
28000.00
7.00
42000.00
55000.00
38000.00
37000.00
49000.00
1.2E5
36000.00
77000.00
76000.00
64000.00
1.2E5
22000.00
2200.00
1600.00
42000.00
42000.00
42000.00
2.1E5
26000.00
26000.00
26000.00
31000.00
7200.00
41000.00
46000.00
5100.00
61000.00
71000.00
86000.00
0.10
0.50
35000.00
70000.00
40000.00
4500.00
25000.00
45000.00
0.10
0.10
94000.00
89OOO.OO
ftoono . oo
64OOO.OO
54OOQ.OO
54000.00
Percent
Difference
15.79
16.67
16.67
16.67
17.29
17.34
18.75
19.35
19.51
20.00
20.00
20.31
20.63
20.75
21.21
22.22
22.22
23.08
23.53
23.53
23.53
23.53
23.81
23.81
23.81
24.00
24.14
24.24
24.32
24.39
24.49
24.56
24.64
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.0(i
25.no
25..U
.75. '•?
25.45
25.^9
25.58
25.58
(Continued)
180
-------
Station
SD7
NY4
SD9
NY5
SD7
SD7
NY4
SD9
AU1
SD9
SD7
SD9
SD9
S09
SD9
AU1
NY4
AU1
AU3
AU1
AU1
SD7
AU3
SD7
AU3
AU3
AU1
AU3
AU1
AU3
AU1
NY2
AU1
AU1
NY2
AU1
AU1
RI4
NY2
RI4
RI4
AU2
AU2
AU2
RI4
AU2
AU3
AU2
RI4
Sample Number
SG1-06
SG4-06
SG5-10
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG3-02
SG4-10
SG3-06
SG5-10
SG5-02
SG4-06
SG4-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG2-06
SG3-10
SG3-02
SG5-06
SG2-06
SG3-06
SG2-02
SG2-10
SG5-10
SG5-02
SG4-10
SG2-02
SG1-10
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG1A-06
SG3-06
SG2-10
SG1A-09
SG4-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-10
SG4-06
SG3-06
SG1-06
SG3-10
SG1-02
SG3-02
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG4-02
Old Values
New Values
78000.00
35000.00
31000.00
31000.00
62000.00
27000.00
46000.00
46000.00
9500.00
22000.00
22000.00
22000.00
86000.00
21.00
380.00
240.00
850.00
61.00
4400.00
440.00
600.00
1.E5
1000.00
92000.00
2300.00
3600.00
620.00
3900.00
84.00
1600.00
16000.00
1600.00
160.00
350.00
83.00
120.00
120.00
0.03
810.00
11.00
11000.00
15000.00
19000.00
23000.00
430.00
47.00
2.00
28000.""
16000.00
98000.00
44000.00
39000.00
39000.00
78000.00
34000.00
58000.00
58000.00
12000.00
28000.00
28000.00
28000.00
1.1E5
27.00
490.00
310.00
1100.00
79.00
5700.00
570.00
780.00
1.3E5
1300.00
1.2E5
3000.00
4700.00
810.00
5100.00
110.00
2100.00
21000.00
2100.00
210.00
460.00
110.00
160.00
160.00
0.04
1100.00
16.00
16000.00
22000.00
28000.00
34000.00
6^0. no
70.00
3.00
42i.ii.iO.00
24000.00
Percent
Difference
25.64
25.71
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.93
26.09
26.09
26.32
27.27
27.27
27.27
27.91
28.57
29.95
29.17
29.41
29.51
29.55
29.55
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.43
30.43
30.56
30.65
30.77
30.95
31.25
31.25
31.25
31.25
31.43
32.53
33.33
33.33
33.33
35.80
45.45
45.45
46.67
47.37
47. fU
48. »»4
48. ^4
50.i>0
50.1.10
50.00
(Continued)
181
-------
Station
RI4
AU2
AU2
RI4
AU2
NY5
AU3
AU2
RI4
AU2
AU2
RI4
AU2
NY2
RI2
AU2
AU2
RI4
AU2
RI2
RI2
RI1
RI1
RI1
CONN2
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
AU5
CONN2
CONN1
CONN1
AU5
CONN1
AU5
CONN2
CONN1
AU5
CONN1
Sample Number
SG1-10
SG5-10
SG2-08
SGI-06
SG4-10
SGI-02
SG4-06
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG5-02
SG1-10
SG3-06
SG1-02
SG4-06
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG4-02
SG2-10
SG2-06
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG2-08
SG4-09
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG5-06
SG2-02
SG4-02
SG5-10
SG3-02
SG3-02
SG5-02
SG2-10
SGI-02
.00
.00
Old Values
1600.00
42000.00
6000.00
320.00
24000.00
2,
2,
26000.00
10.00
22000.00
20000.00
20.00
10000.00
0.20
920.00
2100.00
13000.00
7800.00
7100.00
190.00
220.00
370.00
280.00
21,
9.
.00
.00
1000.00
1.1E5
89000.00
1.4E5
660.00
72000.00
0.03
2.00
0.03
12000.00
0.03
7900.00
0.04
0.06
1500.00
0.04
New Values
2400.00
63000.00
9000.00
480.00
36000.00
3.00
3.00
39000.00
15.00
33000.00
30000.00
30.00
15000.00
0.30
1400.00
3200.00
20000.00
12000.00
11000.00
300.00
350.00
590.00
450.00
34.00
15.00
1900.00
2.1E5
1.7E5
2.7E5
1300.00
1.5E5
0.15
11.00
0.30
1.4E5
0.50
1.9E5
1.00
2.00
1.2E5
28.00
Percent
Difference
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
52.17
52.38
53.85
53.85
54.93
57.89
59.09
59.46
60.71
61.90
66.67
90.00
90.91
91.01
92.86
96.97
108.33
400.00
450.00
900.00
1066.67
1566.67
2305.06
2400.00
3233.33
7900.00
69900.00
182
-------
CALCULATION OF BTEX TO TOTAL HYDROCARBON RATIO
(Total Hydrocarbons Calculated using an Average RF)
Station
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AUI
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU2
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU3
Sample Number
SGI-02
SG1A-06
SG1A-09
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
Sum of
BTEX
14845.00
20.50
104.00
105.50
62.10
27.91
445.50
285.50
103.50
258.50
136.00
51.50
724.50
614.50
7874.50
12160.00
24260.00
25360.00
2370.00
7880.00
6680.00
48.00
19860.00
27560.00
13280.00
30560.00
26920.00
25760.00
35360.00
53920.00
0.13
0.25
1588.50
0.03
1.70
2386.47
27.96
1020.50
4340.50
0.10
2.17
3810.50
0.1?
0-3"
3994.50
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
21000.00
210.00
160.00
110.00
79.00
27.00
570.00
460.00
26.00
490.00
310.00
160.00
810.00
780.00
12000.00
15000.00
28000.00
30000.00
3200.00
11000.00
9000.00
70.00
22000.00
34000.00
20000.00
39000.00
36000.00
33000.00
42000.00
63000.00
0.10
0.50
2100.00
0.10
3.00
3000.00
0.10
1300-00
5700.00
0-03
3.00
5100.00
0.10
1.00
4700.00
0.71
0.10
0.65
0.96
0.79
1.03
0.78
0.62
3.98
0.53
0.44
0.32
0.89
0.79
0.66
0.81
0.87
0.85
0.74
0.72
0.74
0.69
0.90
0.81
0.66
0.78
0.75
0.78
0.84
0.86
1.30
0.50
0.76
0.30
0.57
0.80
279.60
0.7Q
u.7f
3-3-i
0.7?
0.75
1.3"
U.3U
0.85
(Continued)
183
-------
Station
AU5
AU5
AU5
AUS
AUS
AUS
AU5
AUS
AUS
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
AU7
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN1
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
NT1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
Sample Number
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG5-1.5
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-08
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
Sum of
BTEX
17734.00
40490.00
25084.00
11234.00
9984.00
64800.00
45100.00
13984.00
912.00
0.10
99.00
0.73
99.00
4.65
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.07
238.00
828.00
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.10
0.09
0.01
2290.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
565.00
3595.00
35700.00
0-28
0.28
0.2R
n.2«
135.50
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
1.5E5
1.1E5
1.1E6
36000.00
30000.00
1.2E5
1.9E5
1.4ES
12000.00
16.00
42000.00
150.00
55000.00
32000.00
28.00
0.10
3.00
0.30
0.70
2700.00
3700.00
0.02
0.02
2.00
11.00
0.50
1.00
0.15
0.03
0.04
0.02
1.00
15.00
0.02
0.20
2.00
49000.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
1.7E5
2.1E5
2.7E5
0-05
0.05
0.05
O.LI 5
1900.00
0.12
0.37
0.02
0.31
0.33
0.54
0.24
0.10
0.08
6.2E-3
2.4E-3
4.9E-3
1.8E-3
1.5E-4
2.5E-3
1.05
0.03
0.20
0.10
0.09
0.22
4.50
3.50
0.06
0.01
0.26
0.10
0.57
4.67
4.38
5.00
0.10
0.01
5.00
0.47
7.5E-3
0.05
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.3E-3
fi.f)2
n. l\
3.7H
5.7i>
5.70
5.70
0.07
(Continued)
184
-------
Station
NY1
NY1
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY4
NYA
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY5
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
NY6
RI1
RI1
RI1
RI1
Rll
RI1
Rll
RI2
Sample Number
SG4-09
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-02
SG5-05
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-1-0
SG4-06
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SGI-02
Sum of
BTEX
105.50
0.08
0.08
0.08
515.00
434.50
37.45
0.08
0.08
0.24
0.08
0.04
13.50
565.50
810.50
45.00
560.50
1240.50
1245.50
3645.50
4260.50
67.00
1040.50
2690.50
0.08
0.08
1647.00
642.50
5399.00
0.02
2022.50
3892.00
2.94
572.50
0.08
4.89
0.94
19.45
53.95
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
329.95
276.Q5
18.n5
0.10
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
1300.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
2100.00
1100.00
110.00
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.02
0.10
1100.00
26000.00
42000.00
1600.00
31000.00
42000.00
54000.00
61000.00
69000.00
25000.00
44000.00
58000.00
3.00
0.02
26000.00
7200.00
39000.00
0.20
44000.00
64000.00
13.00
7500.00
0.02
90.00
4.00
700.00
1500.00
13.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
590.00
450.00
34.00
0.10
0.08
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.25
0.40
0.34
4.00
4.00
0.80
4.00
0.40
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.06
2.7E-3
0.02
0.05
0.03
4.00
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.23
0.08
4.00
0.05
0.23
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.64
0.64
M.^/j
n .
-------
Station
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI2
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
RI4
SD1
SD1
SDl
SD1
SDl
SDl
SDl
SDl
SDl
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
Sample Number
SGl-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SGl-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SGl-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG1-02
SGl-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-06
SG1-02
SGl-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
Sum of
BTEX
382.95
0.10
0.35
47.85
88.20
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.61
0.01
110.00
187.00
863.00
0.10
0.64
667.95
0.10
4.97
0.12
1799.75
2349.75
1.29
0.10
0.10
329.15
4589.50
8989.50
1311.50
9295.50
15795.50
694.00
5595.50
9395.50
10695.50
4895.5"
15995.50
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
1400.00
0.10
0.00
300.00
350.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.30
640.00
480.00
2400.00
0.04
15.00
12000.00
0.03
30.00
16.00
24000.00
16000.00
180.00
40.00
0.60
740.00
12000.00
14000.00
9500.00
31000.00
26000.00
2200.00
22000.00
36000.00
3POOO.OO
37000.00
76000.00
0.27
1.05
0.70
0.16
0.25
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
1.23
0.05
0.17
0.39
0.36
2.50
0.04
0.06
3.50
0.17
7.2E-3
0.07
0.15
7.2E-3
2.5E-3
0.17
0.44
0.38
0.64
0.14
0.3<>
H.61
(1.32
0.2?
n.2fc
0.28
0.13
0.21
(Continued)
186
-------
Station
SD2
SD2
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
SDA
SD4
SD4
SD4
SD4
S04
SD4
SD4
SD5
SDS
SD5
SDS
SD5
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SDS
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
SD6
Sample Number
SG4-02
SG4-06
SGI-02
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-06
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-08
SG5-02
19
19
11
11
Sum of
BTEX
8795.50
10575.50
0.11
0.19
16.95
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.91
0.19
0.19
0.
0.
5464.95
297.45
1079.50
0.
0.
0.11
18758.95
2035.95
775.95
3.91
0.11
114.75
3145.45
0.11
450.50
3656.95
0.11
163.50
3046.95
0.11
318.50
515.45
0.11
277.55
11158.45
0.11
1825.95
24979.45
0.11
115.55
32958.45
0.11
2.13
103-53
24.55
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
64000.00
77000.00
0.02
0.05
62.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
1.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
23000.00
780.00
1900.00
0.02
0.02
0.70
LIES
2400.00
2300.00
7.00
0.02
330.00
6000.00
0.30
1200.00
7700.00
0.02
440.00
7100.00
0.02
960.00
4200.00
0.02
1000.00
22000.00
0.02
5100.00
52000.00
0.02
480.00
58Ui.iO.00
45.00
10.00
400.00
140.00
0. 1 4
0.14
5.50
3.90
0.27
3.90
3.90
3.90
0.91
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
0.24
0.38
0.57
5.75
5.75
0.16
0.17
0.85
0.34
0.56
5.50
0.35
0.52
0.37
0.38
0.47
5.50
0.37
0.43
5.50
0.33
0.12
5.50
0.28
0.51
5.50
0.36
0.48
5.5ii
(>.2'i
f.5/
2.4F.-3
0.21
0.26
0.18
(Continued)
187
-------
Station
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD8
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
NY5
Sample Number
SGI-02
SGI-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SGI-02
SG1-06
SG1-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG1-02
SGI-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG3-10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG4-10
SG5-02
SG5-06
SG5-10
SG4-10
Sum of
BTEX
1086.95
9474.95
8294.95
24754.95
27754.95
39354.95
7294.95
16954.95
14054.95
576.45
4546.45
7297.45
4837.45
23254.95
26954.95
809.50
9376.95
16354.45
4476.95
15076.95
27554.45
7076.95
11154.45
25454.45
9176.95
17676.95
30276.95
10850.95
10550.95
13250.95
37850.95
30450.95
14350.95
20750.95
21150.95
7390.95
15350.95
30150.95
6850.95
7410.95
10750.95
Total
Hydrocarbons
(as benzene)
Ratio
4500.00
98000.00
1.2E5
1.2E5
1.3E5
2.1E5
34000.00
70000.00
64000.00
5100.00
28000.00
40000.00
26000.00
78000.00
94000.00
8500.00
55000.00
71000.00
22000.00
70000.00
1.1E5
28000.00
54000.00
1.04E5
32000.00
67000.00
1.2E5
42000.00
41000.00
54000.00
1.1E5
89000.00
46000.00
58000.00
71000.00
28000.00
45000.00
86000.00
28000.00
35000.00
39000.00
1.1E5
0.24
0.10
0.07
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.24
0.22
0.11
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.30
0.29
0.10
0.17
0.23
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.34
0.34
0.31
0.36
0.30
0.26
0.34
0.35
0.24
0.21
0.28
188
-------
TABULAR DATA USED TO GENERATE
FIGURE 2
Station
AU7
AU7
SD6
SD1
CONN1
AU7
NY1
AU7
NY4
SD1
CONN1
NY4
RI4
NY1
NY6
AU7
NY4
NY4
AU5
NY5
NY4
NY4
NY4
NY6
NY4
CONN1
NY4
NY6
RI4
CONN2
NY5
NY4
RI4
NY6
CONN2
NY4
NY5
NY4
CONN1
NY5
SD7
RI4
NY1
AU5
CONN1
NY5
Sample
Number
SG4-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SGI -06
SG1-02
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG1-02
SG5-06
SGI -02
SG3-10
SG2-06
SG4-06
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG1-10
SG1-10
SG1-02
SG3-02
SG4-06
SGI -06
SG2-06
SG2-02
SGI -10
SG2-10
SG2-10
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG4-02
SG4-10
SG2-10
SG1-06
SG3-06
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG3-10
SG5-02
SG1-10
SGI- 10
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG5-1.5
SG2-06
SG5-05
Total HC
(Ug/L)
32000.00
55000.00
45.00
40.00
28.00
42000.00
170000.00
150.00
25000.00
180.00
11.00
1100.00
16.00
210000.00
13.00
16.00
31000.00
42000.00
1100000.00
3.00
54000.00
44000.00
26000.00
700.00
1600.00
3.00
42000.00
1500.00
15.00
49000.00
44000.00
58000.00
12000.00
90.00
15.00
61000.00
64000.00
69000.00
2.00
26000.00
120000.00
24000.00
1900.00
12000.00
0.70
7500.00
Sum of BTEX
-------
Station
NY1
NY5
SD8
CONN1
AUI
SD7
CONN2
CONN2
AU5
AU5
SDS
SD4
NY1
SD1
SD2
NY5
SD2
SD1
SD7
SD2
RI4
RI2
CONN1
SD7
RI4
SD4
SDS
RI4
SD6
SD7
SD7
SD7
NY5
SDS
SD7
SDS
SD2
SD7
SDS
SD9
SD7
SD7
SD6
CONN1
SDS
NY5
SD6
SD4
SD7
Sample
Number
SG4-09
SG2-02
SG1-02
SG3-02
SG1A-06
SG1-06
SG3-02
SG1-02
SG4-02
SGI -02
SG4-10
SG3-10
SG2-08
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG2-06
SG4-06
SG4-02
SG4-02
SG4-02
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG4-06
SG3-06
SG4-02
SGI -06
SG1-02
SG5-02
SG4-10
SG2-10
SG5-02
SG4-10
SG2-02
SG2-02
SG3-06
SG3-06
SG2-06
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG3-02
SG3-10
SG4-06
SG3-06
SG1-10
SG5-02
SG3-06
SG2-02
SG3-06
Total HC
(PB/L)
1300.00
7200.00
8500.00
2700.00
210.00
98000.00
1.00
1.00
140000.00
150000.00
4200.00
0.70
270000.00
0.60
37000.00
39000.00
77000.00
9500.00
5100.00
64000.00
16000.00
300.00
0.30
28000.00
30.00
110000.00
55000.00
640.00
140.00
40000.00
210000.00
26000.00
110000.00
22000.00
120000.00
54000.00
76000.00
130000.00
70000.00
35000.00
34000.00
64000.00
10.00
3700.00
71000.00
13.00
480.00
23000.00
70000.00
Sum of BTEX
(US/L)
114.50
657.50
810.95
262.00
20.50
9635.00
0.10
0.10
14016.00
17766.00
529.00
0.09
35700.00
0.08
5104.50
5441.00
10784.50
1332.50
717.50
9004.50
2350.25
48.15
0.05
4687.50
5.08
18891.00
9452.50
110.00
25.65
7376.50
39515.00
4916.50
20990.50
4552.50
24915.00
11305.50
16204.50
27915.00
15152.50
7584.00
7455.00
14215.00
2.25
852.00
16505.50
3. '-'5
1J6 or.
3«> 1 n . no
17115.00
Ratio
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.24
Cumulative
Percent
16 ft
X \J . O
171
•L I • J.
ns
. J
17 9
X r • 7
18 2
•L U • £t
Ifl f>
±.\J • U
Ifl Q
X O • 7
19 1
i 7 • J
19 6
± s • \J
20 0
fc V • V
20 4
fc V » *T
20 7
*• V • *
21 1
ft A • x
21 4
*•*••*
21 8
£• X • \J
22 1
fm fm • I,
22.5
22.9
23.2
23.6
23.9
fc *J • 7
24.3
24.6
25.0
25.4
25.7
26.1
26.4
26.8
27.1
27.5
27.9
28.2
28.6
28.9
29.3
29.6
30.0
30.4
30.7
31.1
31.4
31.8
?2.1
32.5
32 o
33.2
33.6
33.9
190
(Continued)
-------
Station
SD8
SD9
SD7
SD9
5D8
RI2
SD8
SD8
CONN1
SD9
SD6
SD9
NY6
SD2
SD8
SD2
SD9
RI2
SD3
NY2
SD6
SD9
SD5
SD2
SD7
AU5
SD8
SD7
SD9
SD1
AU5
SD9
SD2
SD5
AU5
RI4
SD4
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD5
NY2
SD9
SD6
SD9
AU5
SDS
SD5
SD1
Sample
Number
SG3-10
SG2-02
SG1-02
SG5-02
SG2-10
SG2-10
SG4-10
SG3-02
SG5-10
SGI -06
SG4-08
SG1-02
SG2-02
SG1-06
SG4-06
SG2-02
SG4-02
SGI -06
SG2-06
SG2-02
SG1-06
SG5-10
SG2-02
SG2-06
SG5-10
SG3-02
SG4-02
SGS-06
SG3-10
SG4-06
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG1-02
SG4-06
SG2-06
SG1-10
SG4-10
SG2-10
SG4-06
SG2-06
SGI -06
SG2-10
SG4-10
SG2-06
SG3-06
SGI -06
SG3-06
SG2-06
SG3-02
Total HC
(Mg/L)
104000.00
54000.00
4500.00
28000.00
110000.00
350.00
120000.00
28000.00
0.50
41000.00
400.00
42000.00
4.00
22000.00
67000.00
36000.00
28000.00
1400.00
62.00
2100.00
1000.00
39000.00
0.30
38000.00
94000.00
190000.00
32000.00
78000.00
71000.00
31000.00
36000.00
46000.00
2200.00
960.00
30000.00
2400.00
2300.00
89000.00
45000.00
110000.00
330.00
110.00
86000.00
5100.00
58000.00
110000.00
440.00
1200.00
12000.00
Sum of BTEX
(ug/L)
25605.50
13424.00
1121.50
7024.00
27705.50
68.40
30352.50
7152.50
0.13
10724.00
104 . 90
11024.00
1.05
5804 . 50
17752.50
9604.50
7564.00
383.05
17.15
585.00
278.90
10924.00
0.08
10904.50
27115.00
54900.00
9252.50
23415.00
21324.00
9504.50
11266.00
14524.00
726.00
319.90
10016.00
823.00
789.00
30624.00
15524.00
38024.00
115.45
38.55
30324.00
1839. on
20924.00
40060.00
164. in
•'•?] .'"'
4610.50
Ratio
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.36
U.37
0.38
0.38
Cumulative
Percent
34.3
34.6
35.0
^ ^ * \j
35.4
35.7
36. 1
36 4
•J V • "T
36 8
•J W • U
37.1
37.5
37.9
38.2
38.6
38.9
39.3
39.6
40.0
40.4
40.7
41.1
41.4
41.8
42.1
42.5
42.9
43.2
43.6
43.9
44.3
44.6
45.0
45.4
45.7
46.1
46.4
46.8
47.1
47.5
47.9
48.2
48.6
48.9
40.3
40.6
5(1.1'
511.4
50.7
51.1
51.4
(Continued)
191
-------
Station
RI4
SD4
NY2
AU3
CONN2
SD1
SD5
CONN2
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
RI3
SD6
SD5
CONN2
SD6
SDS
AU5
RI1
RI1
SDA
SD6
SD4
AU3
SD1
RI1
SD1
AU1
AU1
AU2
NY5
AU1
AU3
RI2
RI1
RI1
RI2
RI1
RI2
RI1
RI2
RI2
RI2
Sample
Number
SGI -06
SG2-06
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG5-02
SG2-06
SG3-10
SG4-06
SGI -02
SG2-06
SG4-02
SG2-10
SGI -06
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG1-10
SG3-10
SG3-06
SG2-10
SG2-10
SGI -06
SG1-10
SG1-10
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG3-10
SG2-10
SG3-10
SG5-06
SG2-06
SG5-06
SG3-06
SG3-06
SGI -09
SG5-10
SG4-02
SG3-02
SG4-02
SG1-06
SG4-06
SG1-02
SG2-06
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG3-10
SGI -06
SG3-06
SG4-02
SG2-02
Total HC
(Ug/L)
480.00
780.00
1100.00
1.00
2.00
740.00
7100.00
0.20
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
52000.00
7700.00
-0.15
22000.00
6000.00
120000.00
590.00
34.00
1900.00
58000.00
7.00
3.00
26000.00
450.00
14000.00
160.00
12000.00
20000.00
0.20
490.00
0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
Sum of BTEX
(Ug/L)
187.00
312.00
441.50
0.42
0.86
330.85
3180.00
0.09
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
25044.50
3790.00
0.07
11289.50
3159.00
64800.00
330.05
19.05
1080.95
33089.50
4.06
1.76
16004.50
277.05
9010.50
104.00
7905.50
13320.00
0.13
341.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
".35
n.35
11.35
" *"
0.35
Ratio
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.51
0.53
0.54
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.62
0.62
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.67
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
D.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Cumulative
Percent
Mo
• O
52 1
J fm • A,
52 S
^ ft • J
52 9
-»fc • 7
53 2
•J *J • £,
53 6
^ J • \J
53 9
^
-------
Station
RI2
AU2
AU1
AU2
AU3
AUZ
AU2
AU2
AU3
AU3
AU3
AU2
AUZ
AU2
AU2
AU3
AU1
AU3
AU1
AU2
AU2
SD4
AU3
AU2
AUZ
AUZ
AU1
Adi
AU1
AU1
AU1
SD3
NYZ
AU1
CONN1
AU1
NY2
AU3
AU3
SD3
RI4
RI2
RI2
AU3
AU3
CONN1
RI3
AU3
NY5
Sample
Number
SG4-10
SG2-06
SG1-02
SG3-02
SG4-06
SG2-08
SG4-10
SG2-02
SG4-10
SG1-10
SG3-10
SG5-OZ
SG4-06
SG3-10
SG1-OZ
SG2-10
SG5-06
SG3-06
SG4-10
SG5-06
SG1-10
SG4-06
SG5-10
SG5-10
SG1-06
SG3-06
SG5-02
SG3-06
SG4-06
SG2-10
SG3-02
SG5-02
SG4-06
SG2-02
SGI -06
SG2-06
SG5-02
SG2-02
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG2-02
SG1-02
SGI- 10
SG5-02
SG1-02
SG4-06
SG4-06
SG4-02
SG1-06
Total HC
(ug/L)
-0.50
11000.00
21000.00
70.00
3.00
9000.00
36000.00
3200.00
5100.00
2100.00
5700.00
33000.00
39000.00
34000.00
15000.00
3000.00
780.00
1300.00
160.00
42000.00
30000.00
2400.00
4700.00
63000.00
28000.00
22000.00
810.00
460.00
310.00
27.00
570.00
1.00
0.30
110.00
-0.10
79.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
-0.05
0.04
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
-0.02
0.30
-0.03
-0.02
Sum of BTEX
(ug/L)
0.35
7920.00
15155.00
52.00
2.23
6720.00
27080.00
2410.00
3869.50
1619.50
4459.50
25840.00
30640.00
27560.00
12240.00
2469.50
645.50
1079.50
134.50
35440.00
25440.00
2049.00
4025.50
54080.00
24340.00
19940.00
755.50
434.50
304.00
28.09
594.50
1.10
0.36
134.50
0.13
109.90
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.10
0.09
0.27
n.27
0.27
ri.27
n.t'lfi
O.^
" . 1 "
0.07
Ratio
0.70
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.91
0.93
0.94
0.98
1.04
1.04
1.10
1.18
1.22
1.30
1.39
1.55
1.70
1.70
2.00
2.25
2.65
2.65
2.70
2.70
3.25
3.28
3.33
3.50
Cumulative
Percent
69.3
69.6
70.0
70.4
70.7
71.1
71.4
71.8
72.1
72.5
72.9
73.2
73.6
73.9
74.3
74.6
75.0
75.4
75.7
76.1
76.4
76.8
77.1
77.5
77.9
78.2
78.6
78.9
79.3
79.6
80.0
80.4
80.7
81.1
81.4
81.8
82.1
82.5
82.9
83.2
83.6
83.9
R4.3
84.6
R3 d
R5.4
85.7
86.1
86.4
(Continued)
193
-------
Station
NY6
NY6
RI4
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
NY2
SD4
SD4
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD3
SD4
AU1
SD5
SD6
SD5
SD6
SD6
SDS
CONN1
CONN2
SD4
SD4
CONN2
CONN2
CONN2
SD3
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
NY1
Sam p.l e
Number
SG1-02
SG4-03
SG3-02
SGI -10
SG3-02
SG1-02
SG4-10
SGI -06
SG4-02
SGI -06
SGI -10
SG5-06
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG4-02
SGI -02
SG3-10
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG4-02
SG3-02
SG1-02
SG1-02
SG4-02
SG2-06
SG3-06
SG3-02
SG2-02
SG4-02
SG2-08
SGI -02
SG4-02
SG3-10
SG3-02
SG3-06
SG1-06
SG1-02
SGI -10
Total HC
(Ug/L)
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-26.00
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
Sum of BTEX
(Ug/L)
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
104.00
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.39
0.39
0.39
Ratio
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
4.00
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.38
4.50
4.50
4.67
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
Cumulative
Percent
86.8
87.1
87.5
87.9
88.2
88.6
88.9
89.3
89.6
90.0
90.4
90.7
91.1
91.4
91.8
92.1
92.5
92.9
93.2
93.6
93.9
94.3
94.6
95.0
95.4
95.7
96.1
96.4
96.8
97.1
97.5
97.9
98.2
98.6
98.9
99.3
99.6
100.0
194
-------
CHROMATOGRAMS FOR SELECTED SITES
195
-------
r;.u f CO •
r,n /t
Fit F !
P F ri r £
fi. a - a
•1 * . ^ K ^
~7. " I 7
•1. 5~ 1
n. ~~R4
n. fi
••^-/r-,7 ifi:-«i :a:-
n. PllH :-K i.-.-nF"
P T fi K F H F: f
fi. 7s ".S1^^t r- n:•
fi. '? 1 ~fl.S4fl7 0^
i. ft^ "?7noi nr-
.-•. na 7141 «-
m
in:45:4?
r^n x'Fpfl sow
PTI F 1. MFTHnn n. RUN ?7 TMOFU 77
PFfilf* flRFRX RT RRFA RH
«. 7fi 17P74S ...
C». 9P 171
-------
4
«=;
t .
or
1 1 I
no •:•-,••?- iv-,:sr:4r
RECEIVED FEB - S
PMP 1.
PFfiKa
1
7
4
5
rnpr.n
MFTHnn n.
r.w= "ft
K-IIIJ
R-T
n. 1
n. K:
n. 7f
PI. <*-
1 1 5^Q -1 ^
• i • x .nirt 1 . ^>
tw rejOrr«*Si;_
"''ouitfJa.
oci-vae_
G
TntRI 1 rtfl.
fHflNNPI fl
4SS077
- 7fi
7. fi.S
smj n rpnn
PTI P i. MFTHnn a. RUN
flppfl;: RT
1 1.07^ W. 21
= "fl
4 1*
R S
rnrfii mo.
rHfiHHFI A IHTFP.T
1 . ^ ftRJI7 fiS
1 . 3? ?e!471 fl.S
4SSS17
;*OQj&s>
^ " ^L O
^ 0 Al^
,0 1
197
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
F TI F 1. r-,f
PFPikS fi?F«i-
RECEIVED i
- y
PI in
PT
:-. i-'Sft n. :•£
T - i :• n. Sh
P.P-* R|-
:•;•=}.: d?
rnrai mri.
ft 7= -.-•
ft TNTPHT
1 fl" 1
Rf.l /TPR «
Ffl F 1.
PFflKft
1
3
fi
7
niFRn
MFTHfin
4.O77
ft.nfia
R.91
«. 1»7
fl. «51
RUN 41
fiRFfi RH
41
O. 7R
ft. :r: i
198
BESY AVAILABLE COPY
-------
PFflKH
1
a
s
TrtTftl
an.ftrr
~ :•. r M
• . 'iS-a-
1S. M-3
r-:. a?5
i nn.
PT
ft. 7r
o. -3;
1 . IV
1 . :•
1 . :r
H;P^ Rf
=;:-ft:a=: M:-
a:-:'ft-j o?
511 n :• f i :•
RECEIVES FEB • 3 -
V
O
„ v
1
?
1
4
/ 5
ft
7
TflTfll
n /FPR ^flu n
FTI F 1. MFTHnU fl.
PFfllf* flRFAX »T
RUN
4.R97
15.711
5.m?
n?
f». 77 "?44\
r.H= "R11
\
f.HfiHHFI ft
TN.TFPT
wn nfltft.
TN.IFr.T
»7 1
fHfiNNFI fl
FTIF 1
TN.TFr.T
MFTHOn fl. RUN 45 TtinFX
RT flPFfi Rf.
O. 14
n. ifi
ton.
ft"
V
199
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
.? l'J83
fHflNHFi A
.V- •: - •&- i :; fir,: - i
H' ^^ -.
fifi /FFH ^a'-j nrFf.n os •:•- 'sr i?:nn:~i
PTI F 1. nFTHfin o. pun as lijrir11 as
FFfli a APFfi" PT fiPFfl P.P
? 3«».?~ft fl. -fi Si'm.Sft Til
TDTPII mo. sina7
PTI F 1. MFTHnn «. RUM 4fi TKinFU 4«
PFBK« flRFflX »T RRFfl RP.
1 1 R. 5vS4 Pi. fift 1 4RR4S 0? %uTA^>v.
P ?R. Sfi4 R. 7fi !flflfi57 fl? 'iO fO3T«^l.
1 11 . 558 R. 91 4?fl.S51 fl? ^- rttr^^i- HtXviP
. ^™»» j«.» ^^ T^&>
4 4. 57R 1 . H9 fi1RR4 fl? lio OU.TA«O*_
S 19. 19P 1 . ?1 ?557fi4 flft7cx_0£jOC-
fi ft. Oil l.fil 44« fl5 A*
7 4. Rftl 1 . fl4 «4fl1 1 flfi O7'Vje-
R ft. 71 ft ?. R4 9S74 ft7 ow
rnrfli 1 flft. ni?«4a
1?:R7:?«
CHRNNFI A IW.TFP.T «9^?l/fl7 1l:fll:5fi
FT! F 1. HFTHfm 0. PIIH 47 TNnF'i J-7
PPflkTU flRFflX PT PPFfi RH
i is. 71 a n. h* ii77«a ia?
r ?-:.OQ-> n. 7S, 1 7-asi t P?
" ~ n . j 7 1 i.- . o i :• ?fl - r; i n ?
r o°
\
\°
G- V ^1
^& ^ H
. <* "?••''
HH= "ft" PR= 1.
I
i'V[y
^^^
^~>
200
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
FIL: i.
METHOD 0.
NECLlYtUfCB - S 1985
:;. 4-*:
TOTfiL 100.
75 i;-:---" £;
?7 i!i.';:'i-.'7 '-':
1 15*0475 C;
INJECT e.a/25/87 10:46::^
^STll
2.71
ijEOSCIEHCE SUFFOLK CO HV
• .•.?.
FILE 1.
PEflKft
1
4
5
•5
TOTflL
CHflmiEL
METHOD Q,
fiREflr:
35.55?
PT
0.42
0.47
09/25/37 10:46:1*
RUN IS INDEX 13
flPEfl BC
2013II 02
CK= "h" PS= 1.
20^0 02
2. 6??
I.4IJ
0. t-4;
2. 004
0. 76
0*. ?S
1.11
21517 02
40j: 02
12571 01
-3-
100.
INJECT 0?.-'25/37 10:-»?:50
ijEOiCIEMC
FILE 1.
FEHl *
SUFFOLK CO HV OJ/25/S7 10: 4?: 50
fltTHOD 0. PUN 1? IN3E.: -?
fir.En 5C
CH* "r.
201
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
i. 12
GEQSCIEHCE -UFFOLK CC HV
i3?/25.1S7 10: 4?: 50
FILE 1,
PEflK*
1
2
S
4
5
6
7
TOTflL
CHANNEL
METHOD
flPEfl::
10. 327
-6. 232
22.1514
2. 731
^T 1 ^
0. 737
2. 145
100.
n INJECT
•^*- ft- -i
^^—
o. PUN 19 IMDE:: 19
PT
0. 42
0. 47
0. 57
0. 76
o. sr
0. 9?
i. 12
09/25/3
=^=:
fiREfi EC
195130 02 rlgjiUAL.
229401 02^00^
14?511 02 ->
176«"ic: 0^ Cfcaz£_oe_
:opon n^ vnf»w«- HLM
^ ^ ' J « w ^i i
4?3I 02 *» ^ft^^
12573 o: ToueALy^
632150
7 10:52:03
==B=— — . .
X
^ ^ /v V "^"
^ L / y '
I ^X -o
^ /G^£
^^= j
• i i :-:
1.11
GEOSCIENCE SUFFOLK CC- NV 09/25/87 10:52:03
FILE 1. METHOD 0. PUN 20 IMDE.: 20
PT fic-Efi EC
PEhKtt
1
4
5
TOTftL
047
721
SO 9
100.
0.42 i?:?:E7-: •'' •'
0. 57 145:1.:: 61
0.77 17220 02
0.?: 22602 02
i.II 15706 6:
CH= "fi" P'!= 1.
202
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
FILE 1.
PESr if
1
*.'
_
4
5
i
3
TOTRL
CKflHHEL Fl
GEO SCIENCE
FILE 1.
FEfir'*
1
&
_
4
5
t
•
TO'hL
CHftrlNEL 1=1
<
__£-
•:.l IFFOI \ f "i
METHOD
:6. 216
:3. 10:
16. 092
3. 736
Q! 33
2.559
0.2
100.
INJECT
• MB
SUFFOLK CO
METHOD
fiF-'Efl-
25. :47
26. 599
17. 661
15. 264
2. 526
10. 291
2.: 12
100.
IHJECT
--^=
' ^ —
"
0.
RT
0. 42
0. 47
0. 56
o. 3:
0. 34
0. 93
1. 11
i. 9:
* " ™ • « A m^.
•*tCIiJV'iiij PPP u
«. • * S if iJ*wi|
RUH 24 I.'OE. 2-i
flREfl EC
1664:5 02 / ./£?
175104 02 - ,, If '
7:954 02 ^Tc/ ' ^
17:93 i"'2 i/*"^.--«X ^x
9942 02 /I/VLX \//f)0 ty(2£^
4045 02 /" ' /(^ /^"^
11760 02 '
919 01
459557
09/25/37 11:40:55
^-
HV
0.
PT
O. 41
0. 46
0. 56
O. S2
0. 93
1.12
1. 93
-•
09/2
. 46 : 4^=
-. o- . •;•*
09/25/37 11:40:55 CH= "fl" FS= 1.
RUN 25 IrirE:: 25
flREfi EC
297963 fi2 ludft-ie-
2132:4 02l^>^
144902 02 J
1252:9 02 Z.-fi.Vc- ^ex^Ou
20725 i32 »io txJ*OF_ . ^ ^
344:6 o: Txuj.it. ffad/**'
13963 01 ti^t- ^5M^^ "^
320472 //^^ &&£>~
5/37 11:44:: 6
fiZ i
" '" ~
-
203
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
PL3 '
ijE'I'iC lEll'IE i.'.'—OL: CO .-J1,1
FILE 1. rEThC'I' 0.
PEfint P.XE.-:: FT
!:,-.=
;un i-i
IIII-E:
4
5
7
TC'TfiL
CHflNNEL R
14.£e,
2. rss
?. r ;5
1. 856
100.
0. 5*
o. s:
0. ??
1.1:
i. ?:
74soi o:
II914 0
75061?
INJECT 03/25/37 11:47133
GEQSCIENCE SUFFOLK CO NV
FILE 1.
FEfiK*
1
4
5
6
TOTftL
METHOD 0.
fiREfl:;
65. 492
16. 58
14. 004
0. 052
I. 068
130.
09/25/87 11:47:13
RUN 27 INDEX 27
flREfl EC
FT
0.*1 56?145 02
0.Si 144i:? 02
1.12 121741 08«U)tOt.
1.62 451 Ou .
26670 06 O*'
1.91
••
c.
2.17
6991 07
"fl" ?S= 1.
CHrlMNEL ft
[NJECT 09/25. 37 12:00:05
204
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
RECEIVED FEB - s
Chft.'iNEL H
IMJEC
'!:•;*:=•:
NO DfiTfl. CHfiNNEL ft
CHfiNNEL ft INJECT 10.'26.'87 11: =15: si
£L HZ 1
i. uo • •-•-"
flUSTIM T;1
FILE 1. METHOD 0.
PEftl * fiPEfl:-.1
TO
i
el
-
J
5
6
7
TfiL
CHfiNNEL
-^
16.
48.
rf-t -•
£.£.•
8.
1.
2.
0.
100.
a
c,-
657
'•37
516
147
048
55
48?
*
INJECT
i
PT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
10
44
49
56
1 C.
8?
6
.-'26,
PUN 21
flREft
115451?
3254156
1560601
57S'5I1
72640
176777
/S
7 11:53:51 CH= "ft"
INDE:-: 21
FS= 1.
EC
0
0
0
o
0
0
2 rf£T-»Oc.
2~l uo^
^ \
e. J
2 ^'IC" "(- "ft-^^X- Ibf C|i*O
~ 7j,.,^ >»f
(
i\ /I-
:iS?4 01
-------
nrcn c-L
Lw J L6 • 2
1
£.
-
4
TOTfiL
CHANNEL ft
JE1_
-SS.
-=***
flUSTIH T-
FILE 1.
PEflKS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TOTFIL
CHflNHEL fl
"^
(
•M
j
1
AUSTIN TJi
FILE 1.
PEflH *
4
J.
^i
.
4
5
£
•-:••?. 5-1
;:. 44?
4. 627
2.1:5.5
100.
INJECT
RZ i
«= '
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
==- 1. 5?
2.01
METHOD
fiREfl.'i
16. 742
43.1
22. 619
3.572
1.009
2.524
0.422
109.
INJECT
flZ 1
METHOD
flPEftK
16. :?s
4:?! 17 "
22. 6?5
S1. 627
i. 018
-i j • i
0. 4?
0. 56
0. 72
0. 73
10/26/
0.
RT
0.44
0.49
0.56
0.72
0.88
1.
1.59
10/26/
0.
. RT
0.44
0. 48
0
0.
0. 8?
«
2C'S7it 02 //
10 40? 3 02 n \ v
205-1 C2 ^ I) ftSb" •x*'
105:5i 01 5r > ^0^
441?-: ^'
37 12:06:40
. j-a , d.^ 1
• ** 1. 09
10/26/37 12:0t i CH= "fl" PS= i.
RUM 23 INDEX 23
fiREfl BC
400114 02 rttiHAoe.
1149477 02]0^iC
540539 02J
264343 02(b£j^£.^t_
24119 02 i-ntiH1**- rie^\oe_ /
60311 03 TbujtA*- . ^
10334 01 ewfc- OtrAZiAJi- c.-V
_ L^
i ** i .' i V _ ^ ^ *^ — " f G^ ^
f-
>->. O
TOTflL
l^ll-4! Ul
2::t:4t
206
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
KECEIVLLi FLB • 9 1
T.1.1
r ;- = •• ji •• c •: = t _
FILE 1.
FEAK*
1
~t
C.
C
4
5
6
7
METHOD
AFEfi:.1
56. 817
24. 6?7
10. Ill
1. 01?
5.551
1.244
0. 121
0.
FT
0. 4?
0. 57
0. 72
0. 3?
1. 02
1.5?
1. 34
PUN 17
ftPEfl
2027703
ftft < Ci'-~
163567
161 4 3
1?3052
44171
11-M3
E'C
02
02
02
02
01
02
o:
TOTflL
160.
CHANNEL A
i HUE:
NO DATA, CHANNEL A
1567587
INJECT 10/26,'87 12:1.3:41
V
CHANNEL A INJECT 10/26/87 12:41
/*" fl;
AUSTIN TX
FILE 1.
PEA» *
1
METHOD 0.
15. ?t-5
47.4?
22. 75?
3. ?57
1. 01?
0. 775
R
10/26/37 12:
PUN 2? IM
MFEfi EL
55 CH= "^11 F":=
0.42 4J5150 02
0.46 147237? 02
0. 54 7053-t2 02
0. 7 274700 02
0. ?7 2160? 02
0. ?? 1-710 i PI
207
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
-------
DISCUSSION OP COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR
MEAN COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR, Z>, FOR
SOIL/GAS SAMPLE SG-4 AT RI-4
To support the assumption that the soil gas mixtures sampled in this
study can be approximated to an ideal gas, calculations are presented for the
mean compressibility factor, z , in the equation pV = z nRT. For an ideal
gas, the perfect gas law is applied: "
pV = nRT
ZB is not included in the perfect gas law because its value is always equal to
one for an ideal gas. If calculations can show that z is approximately equal
to one for the soil gas mixtures, then the assumption that the samples in this
study can be approximated to an ideal gas is a valid one.
The mean compressibility factor, zm, can be determined from:
where zi = compressibility factor at critical point for component, and y =
mole fraction of component. zi is determined using the reduced pressure, p ,
and reduced temperature, tr, r
t a T where T is temperature of gaseous mixture, and
r Te Te is critical temperature of component
p = 2 wherePispressureofgaseousmixture,andP
r Pe is critical pressure of component c
Using tr and pr, z^ is read from a general compressibility chart.
Calculation of zm for soil/gas sanple SG-4 at Rhode Island Station 6
-------
KNOWN:
1 atm
1
Temp „ 0 =
Temp Mr =
Temp AVG =
BASIS: 1 liter
29.92 in Hg
B.P. = 0.99 atm
= 11-C
61°F = 16°C
11 + 16 ITT T7T in/L-
T = 286K
of soil gas
•yy acm
ASSUMPTION: Largest components of soil gas are Water and Air
Compound
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl-
benzene
Xylene
Water
Nitrogen
Oxygen
UK = Unknown
CASE 1. ASSUM
02: 0.21(0.80)
N : n.79m.sm
Soil Gas Makeup
Wt. M.Wt.
g g/mol Moles
0.15 16.04 9.3(10~3)
0.009 78.11 1.1(10'4)
0.006 92.13 6.8(10~5)
8.0(10-6) 106.16 7.5(10-*)
0.01 106.12 9.4(10~5)
UK 18.02 UK
UK 28.01 UK
UK 32.00 UK
1PTION: Air is 80 percent of soil gas
0.80 x 1 liter = 0.80 liter air
02 is 21 percent air, N2 is 79 percent
= 0.17 liter (^m°[) = 0.0076 mol (-j
- O.fil liter f1 m°^ - n.n?R1 mnl ^
TC,K
190
562
592
617
622
647
126
155
air
^f) =
Pc,atm
45.4
48.3
41.1
36.3
35.8
218.3
33.6
49.8
0.2129g
= n HOOT.,
ASSUMPTION: Soil gas mixture has same molecular weight as air since aii is
80 percent of soil gas
209
-------
1 liter x 2275i- = 0.045 mol x 29g/mol = 1.2946g
Soil gas 1.2946
Components (w/o H20) 1.2871
Water 0.0075g x JjSjg- . 0.00042 mol
The weight of water, nitrogen, & oxygen is now known:
Wt.
g Moles
Water
Ni trogen
Oxygen
Mole fraction
Compound
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Water
Nitrogen
Oxygen
.0075
.2129
.8992
of compounds:
ycom
y = ^i
*
2.1(10~1)
2.4(10-3)
1.5(10"3)
1. 7(10"6)
2. 1(10~3)
9.3(10'3)
1.7(10"1)
6.2(10~l)
4.2(10-")
.0076
.0281
y compound
y soil gas
T_ _ T
c
1.5
0.49
0.46
0.44
0.44
0.42
2.2
1.7
0.022 0.99
0.021 0.5
0.024 0.5
0.027 0.5
0.028 0.5
0.005 0.9
0.030 0.99
0.020 0.99
"aTnV ^asic*6]? fr°m "General ^"Possibility Chart, low pressures,"
D^Himm'elblVu^m^Pre^^ in Chemical Engineering,
z» - z t^i = 0.99(2.1 x ID'1) + 0.5(2.4 x 10~3) + 0.5(1.5 x 10'3)
+ 0.5(1.7 x lO'6) * 0.9(2.1 x ID'3) + 0.5(9.3 x 10'3)
+ 0.99(1.7 x lO'1) + 0.99(6.2 x 10'1)
zn = 0.21 + 0.0012 * 7.5(10-4) + 8.0(10-7) + 1.8(10-") +
4.7(10'3) + 0.17 + 0.61
zffl = 0.997
CASE 2. ASSUMPTION: Air is 20 percent of soil gas
0.20 x 1 liter = 0.20 liter *ii
02: 0.21(0.20) = 0.0421 (f^-) = O.m.2 mol (%•) = 0.064g
210
-------
N: 0.79(0.20)
0.1581
= 0.007 mol
0.196g
°
ASSUMPTION: Soil gas mixture has same molecular weight as water since it is
main component
0.045 mol x 18g/mol = O.SOg
Soil gas
Components (w/o H20)
Water
Component
O.SOg
0.44g
0.36g
1 mol
18.02g
= 0.020 mol
Vater
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Moles
0.020
0.007
0.002
0.44
0.16
0.04
zy
ii
0.99(0.19) + 0.5(0.1) + 0.5(.008) *
0.5(1.0xlO-5) * 0.5(.0125) + 0.9(.044)
0.99(0.16) + 0.99(0.04)
0.19 * 0.05
6.25(10~3)
4.3(10~3) +
+ 0.4 * 0.16 *
1.0(10-')
0.04
= 0.85
Based on the assumptions and CASE 1 and CASE 2 where z is roughly equal
to one, the assumption that the soil gas mixtures of "this study can be
approximated to an ideal gas is a valid one.
211
-------
DERIVATION OP PPM CONVERSION AND SAMPLE CALCULATION
DERIVATION OP EQUATION TO CONVERT ug/L TO
ppmv AND SAMPLE CALCULATION
Symbolical"",8 °f * P°Uutant is exPres^d in gg of pollutant per L of air.
Where:
Mpoll
Vair
Hicrograms
L
mass of pollutant in ug
volume of air in liters
Mpoll
Vair
ug/L can be written in terms of density as follows:
dpoll Vpoll
Vair
Where:
dpoll
Vpoll
density of pollutant in ug/L
volume of pollutant in liters
(Equation 1)
(Equation 2)
The ideal gas equation is written below:
PV = nRT
Equation 3 can be written in terms of density as follows:
P x (Mol Wt)poll = dpoll RT
or
P x (Mol VQpoll
dpoll RT
(Equation 3)
(Equation 4)
(Equation 5)
By multiplying Equation 2 by Equation 5. v° can introduce the tempera tin
and pressure effects into the concentration in ue/L a? follows:
Mpoll
Vair
dpoll Vpoll
Vair
iiui
poll RT
(Equation 6)
212
-------
This equation can be condensed to:
Hpoll Vpol v P x (Hoi tfQPoll ,_ „. _.
VaTF" = VaT? x RT (Equation 7)
Where:
P = Barometric Pressure in ATM
Mol Vt = Molecular Weight of Pollutant
R = Gas Constant:
T = Ambient Temperature in °K
The mass of the pollutant in Equation 7 is expressed in grams. By multi-
plying the right side of Equation 7 by 10s to convert the mass to ug, and by
dividing by 10s so that Vpoll/Vair can be expressed in ppm, then the equation
between ug/L and ppmv is:
_Ug
L
ppmv
(Mol Vt)
(0.08208) T
(Equation 8)
SAMPLE CALCULATION
Station AUI
Sample SG1-02
Benzene (ug/L)
T (°K)
Pressure (atm)
7400
298.56
.988 atm
ppmv s
ppmv a
ppmv =
(.08208) T
p (Mol Wt)
Hfi.
L
<.08208H298.56) UQQ
(.988)(78) x v'"uu>
2353
Due to rounding errors, the value in the table indicates a value of
2352 ppm.
213
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTAMINATED SITE DATA
CONTAMINATED SITE DATA - SELECTED POINTS
(All concentration values in Mg/L)
Site 1
SG05
SG06
SGI 7
SG28
SG29
SG41
Site 2
SG02
SG16
SG21
SG22
Site 3
SG02
SG03
SG04 .
SG11
Sample
Depth
4'
2'
2'
1.75'
2'
1.5'
Sample
Depth
9'
9'
9'
8'
Sample
Depth
-
'
-
Methane
14
650,000
2
70,000
1,200,000
130,000
Benzene
"•
Benzene
0.9
25,000
.5
7,500
100,000
1,400
Toluene
1,200
800
160
850
Toluene
0.5
5,900
<0.07
3,400
68,000
<19
Ethylbenzene/
xylene
<0.07
<36
<0.07
<12
61,000
<19
Ethylbenzene Xylenes
<10
120
<0.3
60
140
-------
Site 4
SG01
SG01
SG01
SG01
SG02
SG07
SG08
SG08
SG08
Sample
Depth
3'
5'
9'
13'
5'
5'
5'
9'
13'
Benzene
130
300
530
780
4
3
0.8
5
45
Toluene
78
140
360
620
12
6
3
5
50
Ethylbenzene Xylenes
10 <0.9
26 <2.3
20 <2.3
50 <4.5
<0.01 0.2
<0.01 <0.009
<0.01 <0.009
<0.05 0.04
<0.1 0.4
Total
Hydrocarbons
(Less Methane)
1,200
3,300
10,000
15,000
48
34
22
76
740
Sample Total
Site 5 Depth Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Hydrocarbons
118,000
280,000 '
6
0.8
1
<0.2
Total
Hydrocarbons
700
210,000
8,300"--
"
SG01
SG02
SG03
SG04
SG05
SG13
6.5'
6.5'
5.5'
3'
6'
6.5'
9,500
26,000
<0.05
0.2
<0.05
<0.08
<150
11,000
0.1
0.3
<0.07
<0.1
<170
<850
_
_
_
_
<180
<900
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.2
Site 6
SG01
SG01
SG01
SG05
SG06
SG08
Sample
Depth
5'
11'
15'
5'
5'
5'
Benzene
<9
<230
<5
<0.09
<0.09
<0.1
Toluene
94
4,000
370
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0.1
Ethylbenzene
<2
<58
-------
Site 8
SG6
SG7
SG8
SG08
SG10
SG10
SG11
SG11
SG13
SG13
SG22
SG22
SG23
SG26
SG26
SG27
Sample
Depth
4'
4'
2.5'
13'
5'
9'
5'
13.5'
2'
10'
2'
13'
12'
2'
13'
12'
Methane
Benzene
Toluene
600
20
6
100,000
70
3,000
1,000
1,000
500
2,000
6,000
2,000
2,000
20
70,000
100
200
10
<0.08
10,000
1,000
50,000
30,000
60,000
2,000
50,000
2,000
900
<300
8
20,000
100
200
5
0.5
7,000
400
10,000
10,000
40,000
700
20,000
1,000
60
<400
4
10,000
<7
Total
Hydrocarbons
700
30
2
200,000
10,000
700,000
300,000
800,000
30,000
500,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
70
300,000
2,000
Sample
Site 9 Depth Methane Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene
SG02
SG03
SG04
SG05
6'
6'
6'
6'
3,400
4,700
4,800
3,600
53,000
<78
4,400
26,000
1,600
<15
1,200
650
<20
<20
<20
<20
Xy len.es
Total
Hydro-
carboys
(Less
Methane)
160,000
150,000
250,000
290,000
216
------- |